Bill C-4 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2006
- Debated in principleApril 27, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 27, 2006
- Passed the second chamberMay 8, 2006
- Became lawMay 11, 2006
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Serge JoyalSenate · SenatorStated he would vote in support of the bill as an improvement that addresses Senate review.
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
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (375 words introduced, 279 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill replaced the prior Act's automatic sunset clause with a mandatory parliamentary committee review within two years. Only formatting, chapter numbering, and assent details were altered between introduction and royal assent.
- Replaced the sunset provision with a review requirement.
Before: “The amendments made by this Act cease to have effect on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act comes into force or, if Parliament is not then in session, on the day that is 90 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets a fixed two-year deadline for named parliamentary committees to review specific amendments and report recommendations. It replaces a prior sunset clause with this procedural requirement but leaves terms like 'comprehensive review' open to interpretation.
Open to argument
“the committee of the Senate that normally considers electoral matters”
Relies on an undefined practice-based identifier rather than a statutory name or fixed criterion.
Clear-cut
“Within two years after the coming into force of this section”
Provides a clear, calculable time limit tied to a defined event.“sive review of the amendments made by this Act and submit a report to its House containing its recommendations concerning those amendments”
Specifies the exact actions required and the recipient of the output.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the obligation falls directly on the two named committees.
Challenging the law itself. The provision imposes a procedural duty on Parliament rather than restricting individual rights, so no obvious Charter grounds such as section 2 or 7 arise.
Disputing a charge under it. The text creates no offences or prohibitions applicable to persons, so disputes over breach cannot arise in the usual enforcement sense.
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.