Bill C-313 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (non-corrective contact lenses)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2011
- Debated in principleJan. 31, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 31, 2012
- Passed the second chamberDec. 3, 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.
- Michael DuffySenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Patricia Davidson9 interventions in debateShe introduced the bill and repeatedly spoke in favor of it passing.
- Djaouida Sellah3 interventions in debateShe noted every party supports the bill and congratulated the sponsor.
- Hedy Fry2 interventions in debateShe stated that the Liberals will support the bill and continued to back it.
- Senator DuffySenate · SenatorMoved second reading of the bill.
- Senator OgilvieSenate · SenatorUrged support for the bill at third reading after committee review.
- Geoff Reganexplicitly reiterates support for the bill as presented
- Don DaviesHe offered the official opposition's support for the legislation.
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
How it changed on the way
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (297 words introduced, 269 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core goal of regulating non-corrective contact lenses under the Food and Drugs Act but dropped the word cosmetic and simplified the rules. It also changed how and when the law would start.
- Title dropped the word cosmetic.
Before: “An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses)”
After: “An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (non-corrective contact lenses)”
- The lens is now deemed only a device instead of a specific Class II medical device.
Before: “corrective cosmetic contact lens is deemed to be a Class II medical device referred to in subrule 2(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Medical Devices Regulations.”
After: “corrective contact lens is deemed to be a device.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses a direct deeming rule to treat non-corrective contact lenses as devices. Only the start date is left open.
Open to argument
“a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”
This phrase creates an undefined future date controlled by cabinet rather than a fixed calendar trigger.
Clear-cut
“corrective contact lens is deemed to be a device”
The deeming language supplies an objective, automatic classification with no subjective judgment required.
Discretion. The Governor in Council alone decides when the deeming rule takes effect, leaving timing and any related regulatory preparations to ministers and officials.
Challenging the law itself. The provision is a narrow, objective deeming clause that engages no obvious Charter vagueness or overbreadth concerns.
Disputing a charge under it. Once in force the deeming rule leaves little room to argue whether a given lens falls inside the Act.
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.