Bill C-23 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 16, 2007
- Debated in principleDec. 4, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 6, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 10, 2008
- Became lawJune 18, 2008
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
- Donald H. OliverSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian JeanHe calls the bill critical to economic and trade priorities and needed as soon as possible.
- Larry BagnellHe commends the government for continuing the bill and sees it advancing a modern vision for ports.
- Mario LaframboiseHe states the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-23 in principle.
- Hon. Joseph VolpeHe worked on the committee to add detail and advantages to the bill.
- Alan TonksHe makes clear he does not argue the bill should not be supported.
- Massimo PacettiStates the bill has everyone's support after stakeholder consultation.
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 the Bill be now read a third time and do pass. · 2008-05-06 · Passed
How it changed on the way
71% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,970 words introduced, 9,303 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill underwent substantial revisions during passage, with 71% of the introduced text changed or replaced. Core marine port authority rules were retained but new clauses on director terms and eligibility were added before royal assent.
- Added rules completing director term extensions and new eligibility restrictions for municipal and provincial appointees.
Before: “(2.4) Subject to subsection (2.1) and despite subsection (2), the term of office of a director appointed under subsection (1.1) to fill a vacant”
After: “(2.4) Subject to subsection (2.1) and despite subsection (2), the term of office of a director appointed under subsection (1.1) to fill a vacant position under paragraph (1)(b) or (c) expires on the day on which a director is nominated under that paragraph. Directors appointed by municipalities and provinces 11.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets clear dollar limits on fines and AMPs plus fixed timelines and due-diligence defences, yet leaves key duties and penalty factors to regulations or subjective judgment. Broad phrases such as 'appropriate measures' and 'reasonable grounds' create room for argument over coverage.
Open to argument
“a port authority shall take appropriate measures for the maintenance of marine transportation security”
The word 'appropriate' supplies no objective test for what security steps are required.“establishing criteria to be taken into account in determining the penalty”
Criteria are left entirely to future regulations, not stated in the Act.
Clear-cut
“liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 in the case of an individual, and of not more than $50,000 in the case of a corporation or ship”
Exact maximum amounts are fixed in the statute itself.
Discretion. The Minister may amend the schedule by regulation, designate which provisions trigger AMPs, set penalty criteria and maxima up to statutory caps, and decide when management of acquired property is removed from a port authority.
Challenging the law itself. The phrase 'appropriate measures' for security could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness, though the detailed AMP review process reduces overbreadth risk.
Disputing a charge under it. A charged party can readily raise the statutory due-diligence defence or argue that the officer lacked reasonable grounds, but the 'deemed to have committed' rules after non-response narrow some disputes.
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.