Criterion number 2 is that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.I take it from that, although the wording is not perhaps as we might have wished, that they cannot violate in their pith and substance--as the courts would have said it--the charter. That is to say that the bill cannot be so constructed as to be, in its essence, a violation of the Constitution or of the charter.
It seems to me that the concerns Mr. Toone is expressing relate to things that could be amended. One can deal with these things via amendment. I'm not sure I actually concur with him on this point, but they could be dealt with via an amendment. For example, if you think that the level of precision that's required is such that the bill becomes onerous, then the logical thing to do is to say, let's pick a larger number we deal with, in the same way that governments have to disclose their grants and contributions down to $10,000, but not below that because we understand that it would be onerous to go beyond that. Something like that could be done. Thus, one could deal with the problems associated with any burdens being too great. Obviously it would only be in the course of debate that we could establish actual examples of how this is too great.
I think this is an argument for careful debate of the bill and perhaps for amendment otherwise.