Bill C-3 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 8, 2004
- Debated in principleOct. 18, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 11, 2005
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2005
- Became lawJune 23, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
80% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (9,018 words introduced, 5,035 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill's purpose of transferring powers from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport stayed the same from introduction to royal assent. Numerous sections on definitions, regulations, and advisory councils were revised for clarity on each minister's responsibilities.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill uses many subjective phrases that let ministers and officers decide what counts as necessary or reasonable. Few hard numbers or fixed tests appear, so outcomes depend on personal judgment rather than clear rules.
Open to argument
“if he or she considers it necessary to do so”
Leaves the trigger for action to the Minister's personal view rather than an objective standard.“who, in the opinion of the Minister, represent the various interests likely to be involved”
Appointment power rests on the Minister's subjective assessment of interests and likelihood.“believes on reasonable grounds that a ship has discharged, is discharging or is likely to discharge a pollutant”
Uses a belief standard plus the open-ended term 'likely,' inviting disputes over what facts suffice.“measures that he or she considers necessary to repair, remedy, minimize or prevent pollution damage”
Grants open-ended discretion over both the choice and extent of measures.
Clear-cut
“Each advisory council is composed of no more than seven members”
Sets a clear numerical limit on membership.“those fines may not be more than $200”
Provides a fixed maximum fine amount.
Discretion. Ministers and designated officers receive wide latitude to decide when action is needed, what measures to order, how to define emergency zones, and whom to appoint, with almost every operative power phrased in terms of their belief or opinion.
Challenging the law itself. Broad subjective grants of power are vulnerable to Charter challenges on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth under section 7.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing an order or charge can readily argue that the officer's belief or assessment of necessity was not objectively reasonable or exceeded the undefined scope of the power.
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.