Bill C-33 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Air Service Act
An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 12, 2012
- Debated in principleMarch 13, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 13, 2012
- Passed the second chamberMarch 14, 2012
- Became lawMarch 14, 2012
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
- Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government)Senate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Lisa Raittdefends government steps under labour code to end disputes.
- Denis Lebeladdresses role of Air Canada in economy and need to resolve dispute
- Kellie Leitchdefends intervention to protect economy and Canadians
- Deepak Obhraibacks bill for economic reasons and to keep airline strong.
- Claude CarignanSenate · SenatorThe bill is needed to protect the economy from disruption at a critical company.
- Ed Komarnickibacks bill to protect economy and provide resolution process without holding public hostage
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 Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for bills debated under urgency and emergency. The following is a short summary: On 12 March 2012, the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-33, An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations (Protecting Air Service Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-33 provides for the continuation and resumption of air service operations and imposes a final arbitration selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole. · 2012-03-13 · Passed
How it changed on the way
44% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,820 words introduced, 3,730 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with only minor edits to finish incomplete sentences and add formal assent details. Core provisions on back-to-work orders and final-offer arbitration stayed intact.
- Added chapter number, assent date, and statutes heading.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2012 CHAPTER 2 An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations ASSENTED TO 15th MARCH, 2012”
- Completed the arbitrator’s duties list that was cut off in the introduced version.
Before: “(1) Subject to section 31, within 90 days after being appointed, or within any longer period that may be specified by the Minister, the arbitrator must Arbi”
After: “(1) Subject to section 31, within 90 days after being appointed, or within any longer period that may be specified by the Minister, the arbitrator must Arbitrator's duties (a) determine the matters on which the employer and the union were in agreement as of the date specified for the purposes of paragraph 28(1)(a); (”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses many defined terms and fixed numbers for fines and timelines, but leaves key choices to the Minister's opinion and vague standards like 'necessary degree of flexibility.' This mix creates clear rules on some points and open arguments on others.
Open to argument
“a person that the Minister considers appropriate”
Subjective test turns appointment on ministerial opinion rather than objective criteria.“the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure”
Undefined phrase invites debate over what counts as necessary for viability or competitiveness.“guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in other airlines”
Open-ended comparison standard without fixed benchmarks or list of comparators.
Clear-cut
“liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a fine of not more than $”
Exact daily maximum and summary conviction process fix the penalty range.“within 90 days after being appointed, or within any longer period that may be specified by the Minister”
Hard deadline with limited extension power creates a clear outer limit.“the collective agreement between the employer and the union that expired on March 31, 2011”
Specific date and named parties remove ambiguity about which agreement applies.
Discretion. The Minister holds wide power to pick any arbitrator deemed appropriate and to extend the 90-day period without stated limits or review.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'necessary degree of flexibility' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 2(d) freedom of association.
Disputing a charge under it. Core duties (resume operations, no strikes or lockouts, submit final offers) are stated as absolute prohibitions with daily fines, leaving little room to dispute whether conduct occurred.
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.