Bill C-3 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act
An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 18, 2013
- Debated in principleDec. 10, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberSept. 18, 2014
- Passed the second chamberDec. 2, 2014
- Became lawDec. 8, 2014
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
- Lisa RaittMoves the bill at second and third reading and highlights its key initiatives to safeguard seas and skies.
- Murray RankinHe states the NDP will support the legislation at this stage despite wishing for more.
- Robert Sopuckdefends the government's environmental record and criticizes opposition positions.
- Grant MitchellSenate · SenatorStated that the bill has something to recommend it and explicitly supported it.
- Hon. Michelle RempelStates the bill strengthens the regulatory framework with specific positive measures for oil handling facilities.
- Mark StrahlDefends bill and resource use against NDP criticism.
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 18 October 2013, the Minister of Transport introduced Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 of Bill C-3 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, which authorizes the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain aviation industry participants for loss, damage or liability caused by events that are commonly referred to in the insurance industry as “war risks”. The Minister may undertake to indemnify all aviation industry participants, or may specify that an undertaking applies only to specific participants or classes of participant or applies only in specific circumstances. The Act also requires that the Minister, at least once every two years, assess whether it is feasible for aviation industry participants to obtain insurance coverage for events or other similar coverage, and that the Minister report regularly to Parliament on his or her activities under the Act. Part 1 also …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
47% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (37,728 words introduced, 32,506 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core Aviation Industry Indemnity Act and related amendments were retained with only formatting and date updates, but nearly half the bill text was altered to complete Part 2 on Aeronautics Act changes and convert the bill into final statutes format. Minor procedural language was dropped and the Aeronautics Act section was expanded from its truncated state in the introduced version.
- Bill header updated from first reading to royal assent and chapter number.
Before: “FIRST READING, OCTOBER 18, 2013 MINISTER OF TRANSPORT”
After: “ASSENTED TO 9th DECEMBER, 2014 BILL C-3”
- Introductory recommendation and order-in-council language was standardized for statutes.
Before: “RECOMMENDATION His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts".”
After: “RECOMMENDATION His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts".”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text relies on subjective official opinions, reasonable-grounds tests, and broad necessity or public-interest standards rather than fixed numbers or objective criteria. This creates repeated openings for argument over the scope of powers and exemptions.
Open to argument
“any situation or condition that the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe could, if left unattended, induce an accident or incident”
Uses an open-ended reasonable-belief threshold and the undefined concept of inducement.“The Authority may make any use that he or she considers necessary in the interests of aviation safety”
Leaves the scope of permitted use to the Authority's own assessment of necessity and safety interests.“the court may inquire into the matter and, after giving the person an opportunity to comply with the requirement, take steps for their punishment as if they had been guilty of contempt of the court, or may make any other order that it considers appro”
Grants the court open-ended remedial discretion without statutory limits.
Clear-cut
“A certificate purporting to be signed by the Minister of National Defence or the Chief of the Defence Staff and stating that a notice containing the regulation or notice referred to in paragraph 6.2(1)(a) was given to persons likely to be affected by it is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that notice was given to those persons”
Creates a clear evidentiary presumption with an express rebuttal standard.
Discretion. Ministers, the Authority, investigators and courts are repeatedly authorized to act on their own opinions of public interest, necessity, safety, reasonable grounds and appropriateness across exemptions, investigations, seizures and remedies.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective standards and broad discretion could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to liberty or security of the person.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing an order or prosecution could readily dispute whether an official's opinion or reasonable grounds actually existed on the facts.
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.