Bill C-3 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
International Bridges and Tunnels Act
An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2006
- Debated in principleMay 1, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 22, 2006
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2006
- Became lawFeb. 1, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian JeanDescribes it as a great bill that sets good standards.
- David McGuintyEmphasizes the crucial importance of the bill for trade and infrastructure.
- Mario LaframboiseStates the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the amendments to the bill.
- Hon. Joseph VolpeStates the bill deserves support as a portion of prior legislation.
- Joe ComartinCalls the bill crucial and way overdue for his community.
- Rob NicholsonPraises the minister for introducing the bill quickly and supports its enactment.
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
That Bill C-3 · 2006-06-20 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- technicalLise BaconIn English, replaced 'authority' with 'jurisdiction' in subsections 7(1.1) and 24(1.1); in French, replaced 'l'administration municipale' with 'la municipalité' in clause 15(2) and adjusted wording for levels of government.Adopted · Dec. 12, 2006 · Senate record
- removes provisionsTerry M. MercerAmend section 57 to remove retroactive application so current processes for proposals could continue under existing law.Voted down · Dec. 12, 2006 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,823 words introduced, 8,903 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core framework for approving and regulating international bridges and tunnels but added a new consultation step for the Minister. Minor structural tweaks and one new ministerial-order provision also appeared by royal assent.
- Added explicit power for the Minister to consult other governments and interested parties before deciding on an application.
After: “(1.1) The Minister may, if in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary having regard to all the circumstances, consult with the other levels of government that have jurisdiction over the place of the proposed construction or alteration and with any person who, in the opinion of the Minister, has a direct interest in the matter.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies clear definitions and fixed fine amounts but repeatedly conditions approvals, orders and consultations on the Minister's subjective opinion of necessity or appropriateness. This leaves core powers open to argument rather than settling them by objective rules.
Open to argument
“if in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary having regard to all the circumstances”
Subjective ministerial judgment replaces any fixed test for when consultation occurs.“subject to any terms and conditions that the Governor in Council considers appropriate”
Unbounded discretion over conditions attached to approvals.“that, in the opinion of the Minister, would not result in adverse effects on the flow of traffic”
Minister alone decides what counts as an adverse effect and what tolls fix it.“any other provision that the Governor in Council considers appropriate to include in the letters patent”
Open-ended power to add requirements by regulation or letters patent.
Clear-cut
“on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both”
Exact maximum penalties stated in numbers.“"international bridge or tunnel" means a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel”
Geographic scope fixed by objective geographic criterion.
Discretion. Almost every approval, order, consultation, security plan change and toll adjustment is triggered or shaped by what the Minister or Governor in Council considers necessary or appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated reliance on ministerial opinion without objective standards invites a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can argue that the Minister's opinion lacked a factual basis or was formed without the required consultations, though the breadth of the language makes success uncertain.
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.