This Act repeals the Colonial Building Act (RSNL1990 cC-23) in two short sections: a short title and a single operative repeal provision. The bill itself contains no definitions, savings clauses or transitional measures.
That minimal approach matters because repeal erases the statutory basis for whatever rights, duties, protections or institutional arrangements the Colonial Building Act previously established. Without express transitional language, the government, custodians, and anyone relying on the old statute will need additional steps or legal interpretation to bridge gaps left by the repeal.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill formally repeals the Colonial Building Act by removing RSNL1990 cC-23 from the statute book. It consists only of a short title and a repeal clause and does not include clauses preserving existing rights, ongoing proceedings, or regulations made under the repealed Act.
Who It Affects
Provincial departments connected to heritage, tourism or property administration; any custodians, lessees or owners whose authority derived from the Colonial Building Act; heritage and cultural organizations; lawyers and courts handling cases that relied on the repealed statute.
Why It Matters
Repeal without transitional language creates legal and administrative uncertainty: assets, delegated powers, existing orders, and ongoing litigation may lack an explicit legal basis after repeal. Affected parties will need follow-up legislation, administrative direction, or court guidance to resolve those gaps.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Colonial Building Act Repeal Act is deliberately short. It provides a short title and a single operative provision that repeals the Colonial Building Act (RSNL1990 cC-23).
There are no further provisions in the text that preserve prior actions, protect incumbent rights, or transfer responsibilities to another statute or authority.
Under standard statutory practice, repeal removes the statutory authority that previously supported any powers, obligations, boards, property titles, or regulatory instruments created by the repealed Act. When a repeal lacks express savings or transitional provisions, those dependent on the old law must rely on general interpretive principles, other statutes, or administrative measures to determine whether existing arrangements survive and on what legal footing.Practically, the immediate administrative tasks will fall to the provincial government: it must identify any subordinate instruments (regulations, orders, leases, or grants) that referenced the Colonial Building Act, decide whether to re-enact or preserve them under another statutory head, and communicate to custodians and stakeholders how assets and responsibilities will be managed post-repeal.
Absent prompt follow-up, affected parties may face contractual or operational uncertainty and potential litigation to clarify rights.Finally, the Repeal Act’s sparseness concentrates policymaking into subsequent actions. If the goal is tidy legislative housekeeping, the repeal achieves that goal quickly; if the objective is an orderly transfer of responsibilities or continued protection for heritage assets, those outcomes will depend entirely on later regulations, statutes, or administrative measures that the Act itself does not provide.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act contains two operative parts: a short title (Section 1) and a repeal clause (Section 2).
Section 2 expressly repeals the Colonial Building Act (cited as RSNL1990 cC-23).
The bill includes no savings, transitional, or validation provisions to preserve rights, ongoing proceedings, or subordinate instruments made under the repealed Act.
There are no provisions in this Act that transfer powers, assets, or obligations to another statute or agency—any such transfers would require separate legal steps.
Because the repeal is absolute in text and narrow in scope, administrative follow-up will be required to address subordinate instruments, property arrangements, and stakeholder notice.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — names the repeal Act
Section 1 sets the Act’s short title: the Colonial Building Act Repeal Act. This is purely formal but important for citation and for identifying the measure in subsequent regulatory or administrative work. The short title carries no substantive legal effect beyond labeling the statute.
Operative repeal — removes RSNL1990 cC-23
Section 2 is the operative provision and states simply that the Colonial Building Act is repealed. Mechanically, that removes the named Act from the province’s Revised Statutes. Because the text contains no saving clause, it does not expressly preserve rights, liabilities, existing orders, or regulations made under the repealed Act, nor does it reassign responsibilities or assets to another statutory home. That absence is the practical flashpoint for implementation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Provincial government — simplifies the statute book and eliminates an outdated or redundant legal instrument, reducing the volume of active legislation to manage.
- Regulatory drafters and legislative counsel — fewer statutes to reconcile when updating consolidated statutes and drafting legislative housekeeping.
- Private lawyers and compliance teams — clarity in that the named Act is no longer in force reduces the number of live legal references to track, provided transitional arrangements are confirmed elsewhere.
Who Bears the Cost
- Custodians or owners relying on the Colonial Building Act — if any statutory authority for property, stewardship or funding derived from the repealed Act, those parties may lose an explicit legal basis for actions or rights.
- Heritage and cultural organizations — potential loss of statutory protections or funding mechanisms tied to the repealed Act unless replaced by other measures.
- Provincial departments (e.g., Culture/Tourism) — administrative burden to catalogue subordinate instruments, reassign responsibilities, communicate changes to stakeholders, and potentially draft replacement legislation or regulations.
- Courts and litigants — where disputes reference the repealed Act or where rights hinge on its provisions, litigation may be necessary to determine the effect of repeal in the absence of express savings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is legislative housekeeping versus legal continuity: the government removes an Act to clean up the statute book, but doing so without expressly preserving rights, orders, or obligations shifts uncertainty and administrative cost onto custodians, departments, and the courts—forcing a choice between swift repeal and orderly transition.
The bill’s brevity creates the principal implementation challenge. Because it repeals the Colonial Building Act without savings language, the legal status of existing orders, grants, leases, appointments, or regulatory instruments is unclear.
Courts will interpret repeal against established principles—often preserving vested rights and valid past acts—but reliance on judicial interpretation is slower and more uncertain than legislating clear transitional rules.
Another practical tension arises around property and institutional arrangements. If the repealed Act previously governed management, ownership, or funding for a named building or program, the government must choose how to continue those functions: re-enact protections under a different statute, create administrative policies, or allow responsibilities to lapse.
Each path carries trade-offs—administrative convenience versus legal certainty and stakeholder trust.
Finally, the lack of cross-references or consequential amendments means ancillary statutes and regulations that referenced the Colonial Building Act may now contain dead or misleading references. Remediation requires coordinated housekeeping across the statute book and subordinate instruments; without that work, regulatory confusion will persist despite the repeal.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.