It was named for George Perley, Canadian Member of Parliament representing the Argenteuil district in southern Quebec.

[1] The steel was fabricated by the Canadian Bridge Company of Walkerville, Ontario[6] and the general contractor was Farley & Grant.

[2] A dedication ceremony was held on the day of opening, with remarks by Hugh Stewart, the Canadian Minister of Public Works and a ribbon cutting by the wife of the bridge's namesake, George Perley.

Today, it traverses the area farther south on Highway 417 and crosses the river via the Île aux Tourtes Bridge outside Montreal.

[15] The failure led to an assessment of the safety of the bridge that began in 1973 by Public Works Canada, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and an Ottawa consulting engineer firm, M.M.

The above-water superstructure, made mostly from open hearth steel was found to have many areas of severe corrosion and metal fatigue, including bearings, connecting angles, floor beams (some had been reduced in size by 50%), steel decking, expansion joints, and railing.

[2] On October 22, 1974, signs were posted restricting loads to 80,000 lb (36,000 kg) and a control station on the Quebec side enforced this weight limit.

After three months the Quebec government stopped staffing the control station, leading an MP to question if the bridge would last another three to five years.

[2] The Marshall Steel Company of Laval, Quebec was awarded one contract for over $740,000 to strengthen trusses on the bridge.

[20] In 1986, agreement was reached by the Ottawa and Quebec provincial representatives and Don Boudria, MP for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to support total replacement of the bridge, as had been sought by the Grenville and Hawkesbury municipal governments.

At the IRC, corrosion of epoxy-coated-rebar was studied by half-cell potential, linear polarization, and concrete resistivity measurement.

[25] At the DOE, scanning electron microscopy and X-ray wavelength analysis were used, with results analyzed by the University of Waterloo.

[24] A study determined that epoxy-coated-rebar, which was expected to greatly extend the life of the bridge deck, in fact offered only 1–4 years more protection than uncoated rebar.