Bill C-7 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 29, 2009
- Debated in principleMarch 30, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 14, 2009
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2009
- Became lawJune 23, 2009
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
- Leo HousakosSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Mario LaframboiseStates the party will support the bill and reads its summary approvingly.
- Brian JeanDescribes productive cross-party work on the bill and its benefits for environment and tourism.
- Dennis Bevingtondescribes bill as straightforward and good example of collaborative work
- Shawn MurphyExplicitly states support for the legislation and its alignment with international protocols.
- Sukh Dhaliwalspeaks in favour of needed updates to align with international conventions
- Terry M. MercerSenate · SenatorThe bill clarifies liability rules for environmental protection, increases compensation limits, requires insurance for passenger vessels, and creates maritime liens for Canadian suppliers.
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.
What it set out to do
On 29 January 2009, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The Marine Liability Act established a new regime governing a vessel operator’s liability for passenger claims. That regime is set out in Part 4 of the Act and includes a “per capita” limit of liability of about $350,000 per passenger. The Marine Liability Act further invalidated waivers and any other contractual provisions that would relieve operators of their liability to passengers, and enabled the introduction of regulations requiring operators of commercial or public purpose vessels to maintain insurance to cover liability to passengers. Bill C-7 amends Parts 3 and 4 of the Marine Liability Act to clarify certain rules of the limitation of liability of owners of ships for maritime claims and liability for the carriage of passengers, in particular the treatment of participants in adventure tourism activities. The bill also: • Amends Part 6 of that Act to implement the Protocol of 2003 to the International Co…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
52% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (48,768 words introduced, 35,853 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core liability regime for marine claims and oil pollution was retained, but definitions and exceptions were refined during passage. Key adjustments narrowed coverage for certain manual vessels and added explicit exclusions for stowaways and trespassers.
- Narrowed the passenger definition for manually propelled vessels.
Before: “(c) a person carried on board a vessel propelled manually by paddles or oars;”
After: “(c) a person carried on board a vessel propelled manually by paddles or oars and operated for a commercial or public purpose;”
- Added stowaways and trespassers to the list of persons excluded from passenger liability rules.
After: “(c.1) a stowaway, a trespasser or any other person who boards a ship without the consent or knowledge of the master or the owner;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact numerical thresholds, defined convention terms and article references with repeated subjective phrases and open-ended regulatory powers. This creates clear rules in some areas but leaves significant room for argument over what is reasonable or appropriate.
Open to argument
“any steps that it considers appropriate”
Subjective standard delegates unlimited procedural choices to the court without objective criteria.“to the extent that the measures taken and the costs and expenses are reasonable”
Uses a flexible reasonableness test that invites case-by-case debate rather than a fixed rule.“any rule of procedure that it considers appropriate”
Broad discretion allows the Admiralty Court to invent procedures without statutory limits.“The Governor in Council may, by regulation, amend Schedule 1”
Repeated grants of amendment power by regulation create broad executive discretion over liability limits.
Clear-cut
“more than 2 000 metric tons of oil”
Exact tonnage threshold provides a bright-line test for certificate requirements.“1 000 gross tonnage or more”
Specific tonnage figure creates an objective trigger for the bunkers certificate obligation.“"unit of account" means a special drawing right issued by the International Monetary Fund”
Defined term ties the unit directly to an external, verifiable source.
Discretion. Extensive power is given to the Governor in Council to amend multiple schedules and limits by regulation, and to the Admiralty Court to decide what steps, procedures or stays it considers appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. The text incorporates precise international convention articles and numerical limits, reducing the likelihood of a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could readily dispute whether preventive measures or costs were 'reasonable' or whether court-chosen steps were 'appropriate', though the tonnage and certificate rules are 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.