An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (constitutional validity of any Act)

This bill is from the 38th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in November 2005.

Sponsor

Dave Chatters  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Nov. 5, 2004
(This bill did not become law.)

Similar bills

C-349 (37th Parliament, 3rd session) An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act
C-349 (37th Parliament, 2nd session) An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act
C-234 (37th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-269s:

C-269 (2022) An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (suicide prevention)
C-269 (2021) An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage)
C-269 (2016) An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (sentencing) and to make consequential amendments to another Act
C-269 (2013) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (community service group membership dues)
C-269 (2011) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (community service group membership dues)
C-269 (2010) An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (victim — trafficking in persons)

Opposition Motion—Status of WomenBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

September 28th, 2006 / 3:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for having raised this question.

This is just another example of the manipulations that we are now faced with from this Conservative government which has just slashed its budget to achieve savings on the backs of women.

I believe that more and more we can see the true profile of this government, its right-wing ideology. It is also distancing itself from the commitments that it made during the last election campaign.

I remember the charm campaign they presented to women and workers in Quebec about the fiscal imbalance and Quebec’s role on the international stage. They also wanted to take charge of the concerns of workers and the unemployed.

Soon, the House will be debating Bill C-269, which seeks to improve the employment insurance system, a system that no longer meets the expectations of Canadian workers. Often, those workers are women. In some regions of Quebec, between 70% and 75% of women are employed in seasonal jobs. At every level and in every way, the government is backing down from the commitments it made during the election campaign.

Supreme Court ActRoutine Proceedings

November 5th, 2004 / 12:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dave Chatters Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (constitutional validity of any Act).

Mr. Speaker, law-making is the role of Parliament. Unfortunately, since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have taken the role of Parliament in establishing law.

This act would amend the Supreme Court Act that whenever there is a question before the court that deals with constitutionality, the court would be required to take the debates and intent of Parliament into account. It would also amend the act so that unless a decision is unanimous, the constitutional decision would not be a precedent setting decision, and would only apply to the case before the court.

This process would ensure the intent of Parliament is not ignored and would not allow the courts to write their beliefs into law when there is a split decision on the court.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)