Bill C-383 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Transboundary Waters Protection Act
An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 13, 2011
- Debated in principleOct. 3, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 13, 2013
- Passed the second chamberMay 7, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Doug FinleySenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Larry Miller11 interventions in debatemoved the bill and expressed hope it will be enacted with strong support.
- Jamie Nicholls2 interventions in debatestated party intends to support the legislation at second reading.
- Grant MitchellSenate · SenatorSupports the bill for prohibiting removal of water from transboundary systems and strengthening protections against bulk exports.
- Dean Allisonexplicitly states pleasure at speaking in support of the bill
- Peter Julianstates the NDP is pleased to support the bill and thanks activists pushing for it
- Joe Prestonrose to lend support to the bill prohibiting bulk water removal.
- Kellie Leitchstates she is pleased to lend support to the bill protecting waters from bulk removals
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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. · 2012-10-03 · Passed
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,258 words introduced, 6,309 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibition on bulk removal of boundary and transboundary waters remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Parliament added an explicit purpose clause and made minor structural adjustments to the enforcement sections.
- Added a purpose statement at the start of the prohibition section.
After: “(0.1) The purpose of this section is to prevent the risk of environmental harm resulting from bulk removal.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The core ban uses a clear numerical threshold and defined terms for bulk removal. Enforcement and sentencing sections rely heavily on subjective phrases that invite argument.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to believe”
This subjective standard appears repeatedly in inspection powers and leaves room for prolonged disputes over when entry or action is justified.“in any manner that they consider appropriate”
Grants analysts and inspectors open-ended discretion over sample disposal without objective criteria.“may, in the opinion of the court, result in the continuation or repetition of the offence”
Broad judicial discretion in crafting prohibition orders turns on the court's subjective view rather than fixed tests.
Clear-cut
“more than 50 000 L of water are taken outside the water basin per day”
Sets an exact daily volume limit that makes the prohibition's scope easy to measure.“a fine of not less than $15,000 and not more than $1,000,000”
Provides fixed minimum and maximum penalties that reduce uncertainty about punishment ranges.“means those waters that, in their natural channels, flow across the international boundary between Canada and the United States, including those set out in Schedule 3”
Uses a geographic definition tied to a schedule for clear identification of covered waters.
Discretion. Inspectors and analysts exercise wide discretion on entry, assistance demands and sample handling; courts hold broad power to vary fines, craft orders and weigh aggravating factors such as environmental risk.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as reasonable grounds and court opinion could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter section 7 or section 8.
Disputing a charge under it. The 50 000 L threshold and fixed penalties are straightforward to apply, yet disputes readily arise over inspectors' reasonable grounds and whether due diligence was shown.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.