Bill C-13 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 13, 2016
- Debated in principleSept. 20, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 18, 2016
- Passed the second chamberNov. 29, 2016
- Became lawDec. 11, 2016
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 13 April 2016, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-13 amends enables Canada to implement the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, which was done at Geneva by members of the World Trade Organization, including Canada, on 27 November 2014, as an amendment to Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. It amends the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
45% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (20,051 words introduced, 14,044 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement stayed intact, but enforcement sections in the Food and Drugs Act and related statutes were rewritten and expanded. Roughly 45 percent of the introduced text was replaced or supplemented with new wording on imports solely for export, updated forfeiture rules, and added offence and exemption provisions.
- Import regulation power was broadened to cover goods brought in only for re-export.
Before: “(d) respecting the importation of foods, drugs, cosmetics and devices in order to ensure compliance with this Act and the regulations;”
After: “(d) respecting the importation of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices — including any importation that is solely for the purpose of export — in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations;”
- Forfeiture provisions were modernized with consistent Crown language and new consent procedures.
Before: “27 (1) Where an inspector has seized an article under this Part and its owner or the person in whose possession the article was at the time of seizure consents to its destruction, the article is thereupon forfeited to Her Majesty and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food may direct.”
After: “Forfeiture with consent 27 (1) If an inspector has seized an article under this Part and its owner or the person having possession, care or control of it at the time of its seizure consents to its forfeiture, the article is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be disposed of as the Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food may direct, at the expense of its owner or the person having possession, care or control of the article at the time of its seizure.”
- New clauses were added on export exemptions and recovery of costs.
After: “Conditions under which exports exempt 37 (1) This Act does not apply to any packaged food, drug, cosmetic or device if (a) it is manufactured or prepared in Canada;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The text relies heavily on inspectors' opinions, reasonable grounds to believe, and what they consider necessary, creating wide room for argument. Defined terms and fixed time limits exist but are outnumbered by discretionary triggers.
Open to argument
“the inspector is of the opinion that the article presents a risk of injury to health or safety and that its disposal is necessary to respond to the risk”
Turns enforcement on an official's subjective view rather than an objective test.“An inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an imported food, drug, cosmetic or device does not meet the requirements of the regulations”
Uses a flexible standard that invites disputes over what counts as reasonable grounds.“order its owner or the person having possession, care or control of it at the time of its seizure to dispose of it at the expense of the person being so ordered”
Leaves the choice of remedy and cost allocation to the inspector's discretion.“in any manner and under any conditions that the inspector considers necessary to conduct an inspection”
Grants open-ended power defined only by the inspector's own assessment.
Clear-cut
“Proceedings to recover a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada under subsection (1) shall not be commenced later than five years after the debt became payable”
Sets a clear, objective limitation period.“person means an individual or an organization as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code”
Uses an existing statutory definition for certainty.
Discretion. Inspectors and judges receive broad authority to decide when articles present risks, what measures are necessary, and whether to order removal, destruction or forfeiture, while the Governor in Council may prescribe required books and records by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'opinion', 'reasonable grounds' and 'considers necessary' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing seizure or an order can readily dispute whether the inspector's belief or opinion met the statutory threshold.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.