Bill S-41 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act
An Act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 4, 2002
- Debated in principleMarch 19, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 10, 2002
- Passed the second chamberJune 12, 2002
- Became lawJune 13, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
62% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (960 words introduced, 1,236 passed).
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill's scope was narrowed to instruments from before September 15, 1988, and publication rules were adjusted to include exemptions by law. New provisions added a six-year repeal deadline, equal authority for both language versions, non-revival of repealed instruments, and a mandatory ministerial review with reporting to Parliament.
- Definition of legislative instrument was limited to those enacted before the Official Languages Act came into force.
Before: “(a) an instrument enacted by, or with the approval of, the Governor in Council or a minister of the Crown in the execution of a legislative power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament;”
After: “(a) an instrument enacted before the coming into force of section 7 of the Official Languages Act on September 15, 1988 by, or with the approval of, the Governor in Council or a minister of the Crown in the execution of a legislative power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament;”
- Conditions for re-enactment were expanded to cover instruments exempted by law from publication.
Before: “was not published at the time of its enactment or was at that time published in only one official language”
After: “was published in only one official language or was exempted by law from the requirement to be published in a government publication”
- A new automatic repeal clause and a ministerial review requirement were added.
After: “(7) Upon the expiration of six years after this Act comes into force, any legislative instrument described in subsection (1) that has not been re-enacted in both official languages is repealed.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act uses defined terms and fixed timelines to automatically re-enact bilingual instruments and to let the Governor in Council re-enact unilingual ones by regulation. A few provisions still leave timing and scope choices to Parliament or ministers.
Open to argument
“within such further time as may be authorized by both Houses of Parlia”
Leaves extension of the one-year reporting deadline to an undefined parliamentary process.“the Governor in Council may, by regulation, repeal the legislative instrument and re-enact it”
Grants open-ended regulatory power without numerical or objective limits on which instruments qualify.
Clear-cut
“Upon the expiration of six years after this Act comes into force, any legislative instrument described in subsection (1) that has not been re-enacted in both official languages is repealed”
Fixed six-year sunset creates a black-and-white cutoff.
Discretion. The Governor in Council decides which unilingual instruments to re-enact by regulation and the Minister of Justice controls the five-year review and report contents, subject only to broad parliamentary extensions.
Challenging the law itself. The Act contains no vague prohibitions or undefined standards that would readily support a Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. Conviction is barred unless the breach occurred after bilingual re-enactment and publication, giving accused a clear factual defence.
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?
effective
The statutory review required by the Act itself, tabled in Parliament in 2008, concluded that both objectives were met through automatic re-enactment of the vast majority of instruments and targeted re-enactment of 259 others, with remaining unilingual instruments automatically repealed. No other parliamentary reviews, Auditor General reports, departmental evaluations, court rulings, or peer-reviewed studies assessing the Act's effectiveness were identified.
- Review Report of the Minister of Justice Submitted under the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment ActreviewThe Minister concluded that LIRA was successfully applied and implemented, both objectives were met, doubts as to legal validity were substantially dissipated, and accessibility in both official languages was assured.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.