Bill C-40 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 4, 2008
- Debated in principleFeb. 13, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 13, 2008
- Passed the second chamberApril 15, 2008
- Became lawApril 17, 2008
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
- Hugh SegalSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Joseph A. DaySenate · SenatorThe bill helps reservists with job security and protection while acknowledging further issues remain to be resolved.
- Tommy BanksSenate · SenatorThe committee unanimously passed the bill and wants it passed today despite noted concerns about overlap with prior legislation.
- Roméo Antonius DallaireSenate · SenatorThe bill enhances recruitment and supports reservists who bring valuable skills from their civilian lives.
- Michael A. MeighenSenate · SenatorThe bill should be passed promptly to provide job protection, with further refinements possible later.
- Percy DowneSenate · SenatorThe bill follows the lead of Prince Edward Island and addresses job security concerns for reservists.
- Jean-Pierre BlackburnThe member introduced the bill in the House.
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
How it changed on the way
65% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,886 words introduced, 2,827 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The core leave provisions for reserve force members stayed intact but the bill gained a new hiring protection. A fresh subsection was added barring employers from refusing to hire reservists.
- Added explicit ban on refusing to hire reservists.
After: “No person may refuse to employ a person because they are a member of the reserve force.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets clear numerical rules and lists specific military activities that trigger leave, but it repeatedly uses subjective phrases and open-ended regulatory powers. This mix creates black-and-white entitlements in some sections while leaving key limits open to argument.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Minister, it would adversely affect public health or safety or would cause undue hardship to the employer”
The phrase turns on the Minister’s personal view and the undefined standard of undue hardship, inviting prolonged disputes.“unless there is a valid reason for not doing so”
Valid reason is undefined and subjective, allowing each case to be contested on its facts.“specifying what constitutes or does not constitute undue hardship for the purposes of subsection 247.5(4)”
The regulation-making power itself acknowledges that the core limit is left undefined in the statute.
Clear-cut
“give at least four weeks' notice to the employer before the day on which the leave is to begin”
A fixed time period creates an objective test that can be verified without discretion.“within three weeks after the day on which the leave begins”
A definite deadline removes interpretive room.
Discretion. The Minister of National Defence may designate operations, the Governor in Council may prescribe classes of employees, durations, and what counts as undue hardship or valid reason, and the Minister may exempt employees from leave on broad public-safety or hardship grounds.
Challenging the law itself. The subjective exception in 247.5(4) and undefined terms such as undue hardship and valid reason could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 or s. 2(d) of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An employer accused of denying leave or discriminating can readily argue that the employee lacked a valid reason, that undue hardship existed, or that the Minister’s opinion was not properly formed.
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.