Bill C-5 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 11, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 11, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 11, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMarch 9, 2004
- Became lawMarch 11, 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
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets one fixed date and one objective trigger for when the 2003 representation order takes effect. All changes are made by direct amendment to named subsections of an existing statute.
Clear-cut
“effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs on or after April 1, 2004”
Uses a calendar date and a single, verifiable parliamentary event rather than any subjective standard.“subsection 25(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is replaced by the following”
Direct textual replacement of a numbered subsection leaves no room for interpretation of the new wording.“deemed, for the purposes of subsection 25(2) of that Act, as enacted by section 2 of this Act, to be effective on January 1, 2004”
Applies a fixed retrospective date solely for the limited purposes stated in the new subsection.
Discretion. No power is delegated to any minister, official or regulation; every date and legal effect is stated in the Act itself.
Challenging the law itself. The Act contains only mechanical date-setting provisions and does not engage any Charter right in a manner that would support a vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions create no offence or prohibition that an individual could be accused of breaching, so disputes about violation cannot arise.
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.