Bill C-300 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act
An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 29, 2011
- Debated in principleFeb. 15, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 18, 2012
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2012
- Became lawDec. 13, 2012
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Salma AtaullahjanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Harold Albrecht10 interventions in debatemoved the bill at second and third reading and highlighted its potential to reduce suicides.
- The Acting Speaker2 interventions in debateno position expressed; procedural remarks only.
- John McKay2 interventions in debateHe states he and his party will support the bill and commends the sponsor for keeping the conversation alive.
- Roméo Antonius DallaireSenate · SenatorUrges immediate passage to develop a national suicide prevention strategy, citing urgency and examples from Canadian Forces.
- Art EggletonSenate · SenatorNotes the bill advances the agenda despite falling short of a full national strategy and supports it for that reason.
- Joe Danielnotes overwhelming support and urges moving forward on the framework.
- Patricia DavidsonShe describes her earlier remarks as delivered in support of the legislation and congratulates the sponsor.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. · 2012-02-15 · Passed
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (636 words introduced, 640 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The core requirements for a federal suicide prevention framework remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent. Updates were limited to formal titles, dates, and publication details.
- Header details shifted from first reading to royal assent.
Before: “FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 MR. ALBRECHT”
After: “ASSENTED TO 14th DECEMBER, 2012”
- Publication authority line was expanded with new contact information.
Before: “Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons”
After: “Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons Available from: Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S5”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act sets deadlines and requires a framework plus consultations but relies on undefined terms and broad discretion over content and roles. This leaves most questions of scope and compliance open to argument rather than settled by the text.
Open to argument
“designates the appropriate entity within the Government of Canada”
'Appropriate' supplies no objective test or defined criteria.“share information and align the elements of the framework described in section 2 with existing efforts”
No measurable standard for what alignment requires.“report to Canadians on its progress and activities”
'Progress' is subjective and open-ended.
Clear-cut
“Within 180 days after the day on which this section comes into force”
Fixed calendar deadline removes discretion on timing.“every two years thereafter”
Recurring interval is numerically certain.
Discretion. Ministers and designated officials decide which organizations count as relevant, what the framework contains, which entity is appropriate, and what counts as progress or best practices.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates no restrictions on individuals and only programmatic duties for the federal government, so doctrines of vagueness or overbreadth under the Charter have little purchase.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute imposes no prohibitions or duties on private persons, so no accused can be charged with breaching it.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.