Bill C-3 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 10, 2004
- Debated in principleMarch 26, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 31, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMay 12, 2004
- Became lawMay 14, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,646 words introduced, 4,485 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor formatting, punctuation and line-break differences from the version introduced. Core provisions on party registration, purpose declarations and eligibility rules remained unchanged.
- Added chapter number, assent date and statute citation.
After: “52-53 ELIZABETH II —————— CHAPTER 24 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act [Assented to 14th May, 2004]”
- Removed OCR artifacts and hyphenated line breaks in definition.
Before: “of whose fundamental purposes is to partic- ipate”
After: “whose fundamental purposes is to participate”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets exact numerical thresholds and timelines for party registration and reporting. It pairs those with open-ended tests about a party's 'fundamental purposes' and broad official discretion over compliance and penalties.
Open to argument
“If the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to suspect that a registered party does not have as one of its fundamental purposes”
The 'reasonable grounds to suspect' and 'fundamental purposes' standards are subjective and invite argument over what counts.“the court may, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission”
This leaves the court wide latitude to decide additional penalties without fixed criteria.“the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the party has provided the information required under subsection 366(2) and that the information is accurate.”
Satisfaction is an official's subjective judgment rather than an objective checklist.
Clear-cut
“the names and addresses of 250 electors and their declarations”
A fixed numerical membership requirement removes discretion on quantity.“a registered party and an eligible party shall have at least three officers in addition to the leader”
Exact minimum officer count is stated without qualifiers.“On or before June 30 of every third year, beginning in 2007”
Specific recurring calendar dates create clear compliance deadlines.
Discretion. The Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Canada Elections receive repeated authority to request information, assess accuracy, and initiate deregistration based on their own satisfaction or suspicion.
Challenging the law itself. The purpose-based definition and ongoing monitoring provisions could be challenged under Charter s. 2(d) freedom of association for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Proving or disputing whether a party truly has a listed 'fundamental purpose' requires evidence of internal intent and activities, making violations difficult to contest on factual grounds.
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.