Talk:Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (Canada)

This alleged Act does not exist

There is no Act of Parliament called the "Statute Law Revision (No. 3) Act 1893". For prima facie proof, see the annual Queen's printer volume of public general statutes for 1893 (see chapter 14 and chapter 54 and the Index to Public General Acts in particular) which does not include this non-existent fictitious made-up spurious alleged Act. In any event, the name "Statute Law Revision (No. 3) Act 1893" is unverifiable with any reliable source. All of the sources cited in this article refer to the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (ie the first Statute Law Revision Act of 1893) which is not called the "Statute Law Revision (No. 3) Act 1893" by any of those sources or by any other reliable source.

What the Table of Contents of the Canadian Report actually says is that the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (ie the first Statute Law Revision Act of 1893) is Enactment No 3 in Part II of Final Report of the French Constitutional Drafting Committee. In other words, it is referred to as "Enactment No 3" because it is the third listed item in a list of legislation in a report.

I am prepared to accept that the page name of this page might be a plausible typo for the Statute Law Revision (No 2) Act 1893, and that the page has information relating to the Statute Law Revision Act 1893, which is the Act which is correctly cited as 56 & 57 Vict c 14. In any event, this page needs to be either redirected, or deleted if it is considered an implausible typo. I do not think that there is any content worth merging at this point. James500 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment is further clarified and discussed on Talk: Statute Law Revision Act 1893. The commenter is correct in stating that this Act does not exist as originally named, Statute Law Revision (No. 3) Act 1893, but the material contents do exist as part of the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 as it pertains to the dominion of Canada. See the various external links on the article page including Statute Law Revision Act, 1893 - Enactment No. 3 on the Canadian Justice website. The confusion is that The Canadian Justice website named these specific changes/repeals in the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 as stated but only for internal purposes. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Effect of repealing the BNA Act enacting clause

Some believe that there was no effect of repealing the enacting clause of the BNA Act (1867-1886). If there is no effect, why bother to repeal it? Clearly it was intended for some purpose, and that purpose needs to be examined. The Interpretation Act 1889, section 38, paragraph 2 partly specifies the effects of repeal in future acts. But what does it mean to repeal the enacting clause of legislation currently in force? The Interpretation Act 1889 is unclear on this point as it depends on whether additional provisions are enacted. There is some additional clarity much later in the Interpretation Act 1978 section 17. Some people interpret this as Canada ceased to have a properly functioning Constitution as of 1893, and that re-enactment of the BNA Act was required before Canada could achieve complete legislative independence (as was sought in 1982).

Why did Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau "patriate" and enact – subject to certain provisions laid out in Schedule B – the Canada Act 1982 which contained in Schedule B the Constitution Act 1982 (formerly the BNA Act), with a proclamation, and signing ceremony by Queen Elizabeth II, if Canada already had a properly functioning independent Constitution? Obviously, Canada's Constitution was, at the very least, not independent of the UK, and so Canada was not an autonomous country.

Why, in 1931 did Canada choose not exercise its full autonomy as provided for under the Statute of Westminster 1931? Could it be because Canada did not have a properly functioning Constitution due to the repeal of the Statute Law Revision Act 1893? Was the BNA Act re-enacted anytime between 1893 and 1931? Was the BNA Act re-enacted anytime between 1931 and 1982?

One editor in another discussion referencing the First Report of the Constitutional Commission, Australia vol. 1 in which he states these kind of repeals (of enacting clauses) have no effect, is clearly false. The text of the Commission states that they recommended to repeal the enacting clause of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, because Australia had already become legislatively independent of the UK through the Statute of Westminster 1931 and subsequent enactments. In other words, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900 became moot (spent). Canada did not seek to achieve complete legislative autonomy from the UK until 1982. When the enacting clause of the British North America Act was repealed in 1893, Canada was not legislatively independent. Canada still did not become legislatively independent through the Statute of Westminster 1931. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be conflicting information regarding the effects of repeal of enacting clauses:

Statute Law Revision (No. 1) 1893 p. 1 no. 20 states:[1]

The repeal of any words or expressions of enactment described in the said schedule shall not affect the binding force, operation, or construction of any statute, or of any part of a statute, whether as respects the past or the future;

Interpretation: Repeal of enacting clause has no effect in SLRA 1893.

Statute Law Revision (No. 1) 1893 p. 3 no. 35 states:[2]

III.—The ground for the proposed repeals of enacting words and omission of preambles and recitals is, in every case, that those words, preambles, and recitals, are not necessary for the effect or construction of any enactment; accordingly no special mention is made in the third columns of the Schedule whenever this is the reason for any proposal.

Interpretation: Enacting clause is not necessary for any enactments mentioned in SLRA 1893.

But then why are enacting clauses used in every instance of legislation? For example, every BNA Act from 1867-1982 contains enacting clauses. What is the reason for repealing the enacting clause of the BNA Act in the SLRA 1893 Schedule? It doesn't make sense that it had no purpose. Is it possible that Canada was without a legally functioning Constitution between 1893 and 1982 1907 when BNA Act, 1907 was once again passed with a proper enacting clause after the BNA Act (1871) was repealed by SLRA 1893?

—

Here's a further wrinkle:

Why does the SLRA 1893 repeal section two of BNA Act 1871 which reads:

2 The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Interpretation: The provisions of this Act, referring to Her Majesty the Queen do not extend to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, without a separate re-enactment (which happened in BNA Act 1907 under King Edward). Remember, Queen Victoria died in 1901. Digging deeper, perhaps this had to do with Edward's irresponsible nature, and his mother, Queen Victoria, did not want the Dominion of Canada to be automatically subject to her dissolute son without a proper re-enactment of the BNA Act after her death by the British Parliament. On King Edward VII:

"Edward gained a reputation as a playboy. Determined to get some army experience, he attended manoeuvres in Ireland, during which he spent three nights with an actress, Nellie Clifden, who was hidden in the camp by his fellow officers. Prince Albert, though ill, was appalled and visited Edward at Cambridge to issue a reprimand. Albert died in December 1861 just two weeks after the visit. Queen Victoria was inconsolable, wore mourning clothes for the rest of her life and blamed Edward for his father's death. At first, she regarded her son with distaste as frivolous, indiscreet and irresponsible. She wrote to her eldest daughter, "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder."

—

Finally, with respect to Canadian Law:[3]

The enacting clause is an essential part of the bill. It states the authority under which it is enacted, and consists of a brief paragraph following the long title and preceding the provisions of the bill: “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”. In the event that there is a preamble, the enacting clause follows it.

Polite and good-faith comments welcome. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears that the various BNA Acts (including BNA Act 1907) did not attempt to re-enact BNA Act 1867, but only amend it. Therefore, IF the repealed enacting clause had the effect of nullifying BNA Act 1867, then none of the subsequent BNA Acts actually re-enacted it, they only amended legislation that was not in force. The only exception to this is the Canada Act 1982, which re-enacts, in Schedule B the full updated BNA Act with all amendments.

However, there is also evidence given above that the repeal of the enacting clause did not effect BNA Act's 1867-1886 binding force. Still very strange though: why bother to repeal the enacting clause if it doesn't have any effect? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)