Bill S-1001 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston
Senate bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 7, 2011
- Debated in principleJune 20, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 22, 2011
- Passed the second chamberJune 23, 2011
- Became lawJune 25, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Lowell MurraySenate · Sponsor in the Senate
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
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
73% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,045 words introduced, 1,177 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with added royal assent details and chapter numbering while removing explanatory notes on prior law. Core amendments to the university's board, council, and officer provisions remained intact.
- Added royal assent date and chapter reference to the enacted statute.
After: “ASSENTED TO 26th JUNE, 2011 BILL S-1001”
- Removed explanatory notes quoting the old sections 7, 10 and 11 of the 1912 act.
Before: “In addition to the chancellor elected by the Council and the principal appointed by the trustees there shall be a rector elected by the registered matriculated students of the University.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets fixed numbers of board and council members, exact election groups, and three-year terms using objective criteria. It leaves some room for by-laws on vacancies and general conduct but keeps those powers inside narrow statutory bounds.
Open to argument
“for any other cause”
This open-ended phrase lets the board decide what counts as a vacancy without an objective test.“the conduct in all other particulars of the affairs”
Broad residual language allows wide interpretation of what by-laws may cover.
Clear-cut
“two faculty members elected by the faculty”
Exact count and clear electing body remove ambiguity about composition.“three years from the date of appointment”
Fixed numerical term with a clear start date creates a black-and-white end point.“not more than ten individuals”
Upper numerical limit plus election method gives an objective ceiling.
Discretion. No power is given to ministers or regulations; all ongoing discretion rests with the Board of Trustees and University Council through their own by-laws.
Challenging the law itself. The Act is a private incorporation statute with no obvious vagueness or overbreadth that would engage section 7 or 2(b) Charter rights.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions create institutional structures rather than offences, so disputes would centre on by-law validity rather than individual breach.
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.