Talk:Bill 99: Difference between revisions
→Name?: Clearing up controversy over the 'short title' of this particular Quebec statute, under challenge in Court |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:Really nowadays laws have short names. Except this one! (I didn't believe this at first either.) [[Special:Contributions/118.90.65.233|118.90.65.233]] ([[User talk:118.90.65.233|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
:Really nowadays laws have short names. Except this one! (I didn't believe this at first either.) [[Special:Contributions/118.90.65.233|118.90.65.233]] ([[User talk:118.90.65.233|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
Hello. No, there is no short title for this one. Someone who had been reversing edits had said: |
|||
(cur | prev) 12:33, 19 October 2008 118.90.65.233 (talk) (2,892 bytes) (I won't revert again, since if it is, the intention is clear that its not welcome. However, if you follow the link, "short title" is not used in its plain English sense, but rather as a technical term) |
|||
I would like to confirm: |
|||
[a] that statutes passed in Canada do usually have both a "Long Title" and a "Short Title". The job of the Long Title is to define the "statutory purpose" (the purpose of the law or act) which serves to confine the contents of the statute and thus also confine deliberations on the bill intended to become a statute. |
|||
[b] I have studied the two exhibit boxes and the court file in the Henderson challenge of Bill 99 down at the Montreal courthouse. Transcripts of pleadings indicate that the name "Bill 99" was adopted for convenience during pleadings at Quebec Superior Court before Judge Michel Cote, on the suggestion of lawyer REal A. Forest. I think Forest was then with the firm FASKEN MARTINEAU, and sitting as co-counsel with Quebec Government house lawyers, BERNARD ROY & ASSOCIES. |
|||
== Political Statements == |
== Political Statements == |
Revision as of 18:14, 13 October 2010
![]() | Canada: Quebec / Law Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
About this statement:
- The act is merely a political statement and has no effect in law.
Is this based on the intent of the politicians who pased it (as in they came and said "this is just a statement"), based on a legal opinion (ie. an act as no legal bearing) or is it a personnal opinion ?
Not looking to start a fight, just curious.--Marc pasquin 18:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a legal opinion (I'm personally against the Clarity Act myself)Habsfannova 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- What key information that seems to be missing here is whether or not this received Royal Assent. If it didn't, then this bill remains a political statement without effect in law. If it did receive the Lieutenant-Governor's signature, then it is an act, and has effect in law, whether or not it actually contradicts federal laws. I have a hard time believing that a bill full of so much groundless text could be granted Royal Assent; and even if it was given by the provincial vice-regal, the Governor General has the right to revoke it. Does anyone know if this bill was made into an act? --gbambino 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this - the law in PDF from a Quebec Government site - said law was assented to on 13 Dec. 2000. I assume that means royal assent... Pfainuk 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Name?
I realize this is the actual name of the law, but it's a bit wordy. Is there a shorter name by which this act is known?
Also, I suspect that the English name of the act should not have an acute accent in "Quebec". --Saforrest 01:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it's in the official English text of the act. Interesting. --Saforrest 01:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Holy crap is that a long article name. I wonder if it isn't the longest article name on Wikipedia. --Willmolls 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Really nowadays laws have short names. Except this one! (I didn't believe this at first either.) 118.90.65.233 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. No, there is no short title for this one. Someone who had been reversing edits had said:
(cur | prev) 12:33, 19 October 2008 118.90.65.233 (talk) (2,892 bytes) (I won't revert again, since if it is, the intention is clear that its not welcome. However, if you follow the link, "short title" is not used in its plain English sense, but rather as a technical term)
I would like to confirm:
[a] that statutes passed in Canada do usually have both a "Long Title" and a "Short Title". The job of the Long Title is to define the "statutory purpose" (the purpose of the law or act) which serves to confine the contents of the statute and thus also confine deliberations on the bill intended to become a statute.
[b] I have studied the two exhibit boxes and the court file in the Henderson challenge of Bill 99 down at the Montreal courthouse. Transcripts of pleadings indicate that the name "Bill 99" was adopted for convenience during pleadings at Quebec Superior Court before Judge Michel Cote, on the suggestion of lawyer REal A. Forest. I think Forest was then with the firm FASKEN MARTINEAU, and sitting as co-counsel with Quebec Government house lawyers, BERNARD ROY & ASSOCIES.
Political Statements
Both acts are mandates given to their respective governments. Since law is made through force, it is uncertain how much power the National Assembly has vis-a-vis the Government of Canada to enforce its laws over the latter.
G. Csikos