Bill C-24 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 29, 2003
- Debated in principleMarch 18, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 11, 2003
- Passed the second chamberJune 18, 2003
- Became lawJune 19, 2003
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
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (35,224 words introduced, 31,043 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core rules limiting contributions to individuals and creating new registration and reporting requirements for associations, leadership and nomination contestants were retained. Parliament added a cross-reference rule, a courier-or-registered-mail notice requirement, and the royal assent date.
- Added a requirement that deregistration notices be sent by registered mail or courier with proof of delivery.
After: “(3) The notice under subsection (1) shall be sent by registered mail or by a method of courier service that provides proof of mailing, a record while in transit and a record of delivery.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill mixes fixed timelines and defined roles with repeated subjective tests such as reasonable grounds and appropriate conditions. This leaves many obligations open to argument over what counts as compliant.
Open to argument
“pense reasonably incurred by or on behalf of a leadership contestant”
Uses a reasonableness standard that requires later judgment rather than an objective list.“If the Chief Electoral Officer believes on reasonable grounds”
Ties enforcement to the officer's belief rather than an objective fact.“any term or condition that he or she considers appropriate”
Grants open-ended discretion without statutory limits.“knows or ought reasonably to have known”
Introduces a constructive-knowledge test that invites disputes over what should have been known.
Clear-cut
“Within 30 days after the appointment”
Sets a clear calendar deadline.“the four-month period referred to in subsection 435.24(1)”
Refers to a fixed statutory time limit.
Discretion. The Chief Electoral Officer receives repeated power to decide what is reasonable, appropriate or sufficient and to set terms on payments and reports.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as reasonable grounds and appropriate conditions could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under s. 2(b) or s. 3 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching rules on contributions or reports can readily argue that their conduct was not reasonably known to be non-compliant or that conditions imposed were not appropriate.
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.