Bill C-76 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Elections Modernization Act
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 30, 2018
- Debated in principleMay 23, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 30, 2018
- Passed the second chamberDec. 10, 2018
- Became lawDec. 12, 2018
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime 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 pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 30 April 2018, the Minister of Democratic Institutions introduced Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (Elections Modernization Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-76 amends the Canada Elections Act to establish spending limits for third parties and political parties during a defined period before the election period of a general election held on a day fixed under that Act. It also establishes measures to increase transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment (a) adds reporting requirements for third parties engaging in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys to the reporting requirements for third parties engaging in election advertising; (b) …
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
50% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (115,854 words introduced, 78,152 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The introduced bill focused on third-party spending limits and transparency rules but saw half its text replaced or expanded by royal assent. Definitional updates, voting qualifications, and new administrative powers for the Chief Electoral Officer were added while some disqualifications were removed.
- Definitions of capital asset, election officer, polling day and related terms were expanded.
Before: “capital asset means any property with a commercial value of more than $200 that is normally used outside an election period other than for the purposes of an election.”
After: “capital asset means any property with a commercial value of more than $200 that (a) in the case of a registered party, an electoral district association or a candidate, is normally used outside an election period other than for the purposes of an election;”
- Sections 4 and 5 on voter disqualifications were repealed and replaced with new qualification rules.
Before: “4 The following persons are not entitled to vote at an election: (a) the Chief Electoral Officer; (b) the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer; and (c) every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more.”
After: “3 Every person who is a Canadian citizen and who on polling day is 18 years of age or older is qualified as an elector.”
- New provisions on Chief Electoral Officer guidelines, voting studies and delegation were inserted.
After: “Voting studies 18.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respecting alternative voting means.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies some numerical thresholds and defined terms but repeatedly uses subjective phrases that turn on an official's opinion or 'reasonable grounds.' This structure invites prolonged disputes over coverage rather than quick black-and-white application.
Open to argument
“the Chief Electoral Officer considers appropriate”
Subjective standard that depends on one official's judgment rather than an objective test.“on reasonable grounds”
Vague reasonableness test that invites argument over what facts suffice.“considers necessary for the exercise or performance of his or her powers”
Broad discretion tied to the officer's own view of necessity.“information that the Chief Electoral Officer considers reliable and necessary”
Undefined reliability and necessity criteria left to official discretion.
Clear-cut
“any property with a commercial value of more than $200”
Fixed dollar threshold creates a clear cutoff.“a Canadian citizen who is 14 years of age or older but under 18 years of age”
Exact age range supplies an objective test.“the 37th day before the Monday referred to in subsection 56.1(2)”
Specific calendar day provides a bright-line date.
Discretion. Extensive power is delegated to the Chief Electoral Officer to decide staffing levels, information reliability, program design, appointment refusals, and agreement terms.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'reasonable grounds' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter section 2(b) or section 3.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether the Chief Electoral Officer had 'reasonable grounds' or 'considered' something necessary, turning on subjective elements in the text.
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.