Bill S-2 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Marine Liability Act
An Act respecting marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws and regulations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 30, 2001
- Debated in principleJan. 30, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJan. 30, 2001
- Passed the second chamberMay 9, 2001
- Became lawMay 9, 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
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies heavily on defined terms, cross-references to specific convention articles, and objective rules such as strict liability with listed defences. Some court discretion and reasonableness standards remain, but they are narrowly framed around maritime claims and pollution damage.
Open to argument
“any other order that is in the interest of that person”
Uses a broad, subjective standard rather than a fixed test.“take any steps it considers appropriate”
Grants open-ended procedural discretion to the court.“reasonable measures of reinstatement actually undertaken or to be undertaken”
Introduces a reasonableness judgment that invites factual debate.
Clear-cut
“In this section, a reference to liability of a ship that is at fault or negligent includes liability of any person responsible for the navigation and management of the ship”
Precisely extends liability to identified responsible persons.
Discretion. The Admiralty Court may determine liability amounts, constitute funds, postpone distributions, and make procedural rules it considers appropriate, while ministers and regulations play little direct role in the supplied provisions.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions are civil liability rules with detailed definitions and no obvious vagueness that would engage section 7 Charter vagueness doctrine.
Disputing a charge under it. Defendants can readily dispute application of reasonableness standards or whether a substance meets the pollutant definition, but the listed defences and strict-liability structure limit broader arguments.
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.