Bill C-64 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act
An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 30, 2017
- Debated in principleDec. 5, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 20, 2018
- Passed the second chamberDec. 10, 2018
- Became lawFeb. 27, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 30 October 2017, the Minister of Transport introduced Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations (Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-64 amends enacts the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, which promotes the protection of the public, of the environment, including coastlines and shorelines, and of infrastructure by regulating abandoned or hazardous vessels and wrecks in Canadian waters and, in certain cases, Canada’s exclusive economic zone, and by recognizing the responsibility and liability of owners for their vessels. The Act, among other things, (a) implements the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007; (b) requires owners of vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above, and unregistered vessels being towed,…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
13% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (35,123 words introduced, 32,919 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibitions, insurance rules, and Nairobi Convention implementation stayed intact, but Parliament added a service-of-notice procedure and rewrote the exclusion clauses to let regulations override some military, government, and heritage carve-outs. Minor wording fixes also expanded cost-recovery language from wrecks to vessels or wrecks.
- Heritage wrecks moved from a shared subsection into a stand-alone exclusion that can be overridden by regulation.
Before: “(b) wrecks considered as having heritage value under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province; and (c) vessels that are on location”
After: “and (b) vessels that are on location for the purposes of engaging in the exploration, exploitation or production of mineral resources or that, as a result of an accident or incident, have drifted from that location. Exclusion (3) Except as otherwise provided by regulations made under subsection 131(1), this Act, other than Parts 3 and 4, does not apply in respect of wrecks considered as having heritage value under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.”
- New section added prescribing exactly how notices and assurances must be served on individuals, corporations, and vessels.
After: “Manner of service 94.1 (1) A notice referred to in any of sections 91, 93, 94 and 108 is to be served (a) in the case of an individual, (i) by leaving a copy of it with the individual at any place or with someone who appears to be an adult member of the same household at the individual's last known address or usual place of residence or, in the case of an individual under the age of 18, with a parent or other person having custody of them or exercising parental authority over them, or (ii) by sending a copy of it by registered mail, courier or fax or other electronic means to the individual's last known address or usual place of residence;”
- Cost-recovery trigger expanded to cover costs of deciding whether a vessel (not only a wreck) poses a hazard.
Before: “in determining whether a wreck poses a hazard, if he or she determined that it posed one”
After: “in determining whether a vessel or wreck poses a hazard, if he or she determined that it posed one”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies heavily on subjective ministerial judgments and undefined thresholds for hazards and public interest. Broad discretion and open-ended powers make outcomes hard to predict from the text alone.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to do so”
Subjective opinion test replaces any objective standard for exclusion from the Act.“has reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel or wreck poses, or may pose, a hazard”
Uses 'may pose' and belief standard that invites argument over likelihood and evidence.“take the measures that he or she considers necessary”
Leaves choice and scope of action entirely to the minister's view of necessity.“on any terms and conditions that he or she considers necessary”
Unfettered discretion over exemptions and conditions without statutory limits.
Clear-cut
“means any boat, ship or craft of any kind designed, used or capable of being used solely or partly for navigation in, on, through or immediately above water”
Detailed physical and functional definition reduces ambiguity about coverage.“means, in relation to a vessel, a person that (a) is a registered owner of the vessel”
Ties liability to a clear registration record rather than open-ended status.
Discretion. Ministers may delegate powers, decide what constitutes a hazard, choose any measures they consider necessary, set terms for exemptions, and disclose information whenever they judge it necessary for administration.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'public interest' and 'considers necessary' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter, though the presence of some defined terms weakens the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether a vessel 'may pose' a hazard or whether chosen measures were truly 'necessary', but the text gives officials wide latitude to justify their choices.
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.