Bill C-18 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 1, 2004
- Debated in principleDec. 10, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 13, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMarch 22, 2005
- Became lawMarch 23, 2005
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
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,946 words introduced, 1,201 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill expanded Telefilm Canada's mandate from feature films to audio-visual productions and added provisions for sound recording industries and contribution agreements. During passage, 72% of the introduced text was altered through refinements to financial rules, eligibility, and transitional validation before royal assent.
- Replaced old feature film definitions and objects with broader audio-visual mandate.
Before: “"Canadian feature film" and "Canadian feature film production" have the meanings assigned by subsection 10(2);”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The text mixes narrow rules on borrowing, liability and listed powers with subjective tests that turn on the Corporation's judgment. Broad phrases like mandate and Canadian content leave room for argument over scope.
Open to argument
“foster and promote the development of the audio-visual industry in Canada”
Broad mandate language without defined limits on what actions count as fostering or promoting.“to the greatest possible extent consistent with the performance of its duties”
Relies on an undefined balancing test open to prolonged disagreement.
Clear-cut
“The Corporation shall not borrow money within the meaning of Part X of the Financial Administration Act otherwise than from the Crown.”
Clear prohibition with a cross-reference to a defined statutory part.“its liability shall be limited to the amount of its investment in the production”
Numeric cap on exposure stated in objective terms.
Discretion. The Corporation decides Canadian content, loan guarantees, and the extent of consultation, with some terms and conditions left to Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance.
Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth claim under s. 2(b) Charter could be brought against the open-ended mandate and judgment-based content test.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations fall on the Corporation itself rather than creating offences that private persons must interpret.
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.