Bill C-501 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day Act
An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleNov. 27, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 4, 2014
- Passed the second chamberNov. 4, 2014
- Became lawNov. 5, 2014
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (348 words introduced, 281 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with no changes to its substantive text or purpose. Only procedural notes about the first session and prorogation were removed, while assent and chapter details were added in the final statute.
- Removed note explaining the bill's carry-over from the first session after prorogation.
Before: “NOTE 2nd Session, 41st Parliament This bill was introduced during the First Session of the 41st Parliament. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, it is deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the First Session. The number of the bill remains unchanged.”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The operative text uses a fixed calendar date and a clarifying clause that leaves no room for interpretation. No powers, offences or subjective standards appear in the provisions that actually do anything.
Clear-cut
“the third Saturday in September”
Supplies an objective, recurring date that can be determined by calendar without discretion or argument.“For greater certainty, National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day.”
Explicitly removes any possible ambiguity about legal effects.
Discretion. No authority is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the Act contains no regulatory-making power.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates no prohibition or obligation, so claims of vagueness or overbreadth under the Charter have no operative text to engage.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute imposes no duties or bans, so there is nothing a person can be accused of breaching.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.