Bill C-14 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Canada Shipping Act, 2001
An Act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 1, 2001
- Debated in principleMarch 16, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 10, 2001
- Passed the second chamberOct. 30, 2001
- Became lawOct. 31, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
53% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (57,723 words introduced, 52,727 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Over half the text was altered, mainly by adding an assent date, a new vicarious liability section, and minor wording tweaks to exemptions and titles. Core definitions, purposes, and regulatory powers stayed intact with only small refinements.
- Added royal assent date and new section 238 on vicarious liability.
After: “[Assented to 1st November, 2001]”
- Added vicarious liability provision for Canadian maritime document holders.
After: “238. Vicarious liability — Canadian maritime document holders”
- Refined exemption wording at end of clause on similar provisions.
Before: “from the application of any provision of Part 3 (Personnel), 4 (Safety) or 9 (Pollution Prevention”
After: “from the application of any provision of Part 3 (Personnel), 4 (Safety) or 9 (Pollution Prevention — Department of Transport) if the Minister is of the opinion that the provision is substantially similar to a p”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes tightly defined terms and fixed fine amounts with repeated reliance on ministerial opinions and subjective judgments. This creates clear rules in some areas but leaves many decisions open to argument over what an official considers appropriate or necessary.
Open to argument
“Subject to any conditions that the Minister of Transport considers appropriate”
Uses a subjective standard that invites disputes over what conditions are suitable.“if the Minister is of the opinion that the provision is substantially similar”
Turns on the Minister's personal view rather than an objective test.“it is likely, in the opinion of the Chief Registrar, to be confused with the name”
Applies a likelihood standard filtered through official discretion.
Clear-cut
“liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months, or to both”
States exact maximum penalties without qualifiers.“a fine of not more than $10,000”
Provides a clear numerical ceiling on fines.
Discretion. Ministers, the Chief Registrar, panels and inspectors are repeatedly authorized to decide exemptions, evidence needs, conditions, names, liability and enforcement based on their opinions or what they consider appropriate or necessary.
Challenging the law itself. Broad grants of power tied to subjective opinions could be attacked under Charter section 7 for vagueness or overbreadth, though the presence of defined terms and fixed penalties may limit success.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute whether an official's opinion or chosen condition was properly formed, but fixed fine amounts and clear definitions make some contraventions harder to contest.
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.