Bill S-37 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 18, 2005
- Debated in principleJune 14, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJuly 17, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 21, 2005
- Became lawNov. 24, 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
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,010 words introduced, 1,965 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with its core provisions on cultural property offences and extraterritorial jurisdiction unchanged from introduction. Only front matter such as titles, dates, and chapter numbering were updated for royal assent.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses defined terms, cross-references specific Criminal Code sections, and reproduces Article 1 verbatim to identify protected property. Some judicial discretion remains in recovery actions and compensation amounts.
Open to argument
“if the court is satisfied that the property was exported in contravention”
Subjective judicial satisfaction test rather than objective checklist.“fix any amount that it considers just in the circumstances”
Open-ended discretion on compensation leaves room for argument.“affording all persons that it considers to have an interest”
Court decides whose interests count, creating procedural uncertainty.
Clear-cut
“section 322, 341, 344, 380, 430 or 434”
Names exact offences rather than broad categories.“is a Canadian citizen; (b) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada; or (c) is a permanent resident”
Clear, closed list of jurisdictional triggers.“done at The Hague on May 14, 1954”
Pins the Convention to a specific dated text.
Discretion. Recovery actions are initiated at the discretion of the Attorney General of Canada and courts decide compensation and safe-keeping orders.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed definitions and enumerated offences reduce vagueness or overbreadth claims under Charter s. 7.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused can dispute whether property meets Article 1 criteria or whether export was knowing, but the listed Code sections are concrete.
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.