Bill C-47 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014
An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 8, 2014
- Debated in principleDec. 8, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 8, 2014
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 24, 2015
- Became lawFeb. 25, 2015
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
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.
What it set out to do
The Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for self-explanatory measures. The following is a short summary: On 8 December 2014, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-47, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect (Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-47 is the 11th in a series of bills introduced under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment (MSLA) Program. It amends 80 Acts to correct grammatical, spelling, terminological, typographical and cross-referencing errors, update archaic wording and correct discrepancies between the two language versions. It also updates the names of certain provinces and territories. For example, “Newfoundland and Labrador” replaces “Newfoundland” in several amendments to take into account the 2001 constitutional amendment that changed the name of that province. Other amendments correct the names of courts in certain provinces to reflect c…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
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
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mostly supplies exact dollar thresholds, defined roles such as 'member' and 'court of appeal', and narrow cross-references, yet it retains several open-ended phrases that require judgment calls. These subjective elements sit alongside the consensus rule for non-controversial amendments and the requirement that changes not create new offences.
Open to argument
“may issue any interim order that it considers appropriate, having regard to the principles ordinarily considered by superior courts when granting interlocutory or injunctive relief”
Uses a subjective 'considers appropriate' test tied to unwritten court principles rather than an objective checklist.“not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence”
Leaves the boundary of 'new class of persons' open to interpretive dispute.
Clear-cut
“"member" means a member of the Agency appointed under subsection 7(2) and includes a temporary member”
Supplies a closed, cross-referenced definition.
Discretion. Inspectors, the Tribunal and committees retain latitude to decide what is 'reasonable' or 'appropriate' and whether consensus exists, while the bill itself adds no new regulatory powers.
Challenging the law itself. The amendments are corrective and non-substantive; any vagueness challenge under Charter s. 7 would face the high threshold for striking down minor housekeeping provisions.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons could argue over 'reasonable assistance' or whether an interim order truly meets the 'appropriate' test, but the fixed fines and defined roles limit the scope of such disputes.
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.