Bill C-39 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Restoring Rail Service Act
An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 28, 2012
- Debated in principleMay 29, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 29, 2012
- Passed the second chamberMay 30, 2012
- Became lawMay 30, 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
- Pamela WallinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Lisa RaittDetails economic harm from the strike and states the government is acting to resume services.
- Kellie LeitchShe states the government must act now to protect the economy and jobs.
- Jacques GourdeArgues the government must act in the public interest to end the rail dispute and resume services.
- Mr. Gordon BrownExplicitly rises to support the bill due to economic risks from the rail strike.
- Stephen WoodworthDefends the bill as necessary to protect the economy via arbitration.
- Lois BrownArgues the bill protects jobs and economy from rail disruption.
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 28 May 2012, the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-39, An Act provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations (Restoring Rail Service Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) represents approximately 220 rail traffic controllers and 4 200 locomotive engineers, conductors, trainpersons and yardmen, whose collective agreements expired on December 31, 2011. Bill C-39 provides for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations and imposes a binding arbitration 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. · 2012-05-29 · Passed
How it changed on the way
53% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,883 words introduced, 1,836 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with its core provisions on rail service resumption, binding arbitration, and penalties left intact. Only the title page, assent date, and chapter numbering were updated from introduction to royal assent.
- Header changed from first reading to assent and chapter number.
Before: “C-39 First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60-61 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-39 An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations FIRST READING, MAY 28, 2012”
After: “First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60-61 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012 STATUTES OF CANADA 2012 CHAPTER 8 An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations ASSENTED TO 31st MAY, 2012”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses exact dollar fines, fixed 90-day deadlines and narrow defined terms for most obligations, but mixes them with subjective phrases and open ministerial discretion. This creates pockets of clarity alongside areas open to argument over compliance or scope.
Open to argument
“take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply with paragraph 3(b)”
Uses a subjective reasonableness standard rather than an objective checklist.“any longer period that the Minister may allow”
Grants the Minister unfettered power to extend the statutory time limit without criteria.“with any modifications that the circumstances require”
Broad qualifier lets the arbitrator alter statutory powers based on undefined circumstances.“refrain from any conduct that may encourage employees not to comply”
Relies on a predictive and subjective test of possible encouragement.
Clear-cut
“liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a fine of not more than $”
Fixes a clear daily maximum fine with no range or discretion.“within 90 days after the day on which he or she is appointed”
Sets an objective calendar deadline rather than a flexible standard.“This Act comes into force on the expiry of the twelfth hour after the time at which it is assented to”
Provides an exact, mechanical commencement rule.
Discretion. The Minister alone decides when to appoint each arbitrator and may unilaterally extend the 90-day decision period for any length without stated limits or review.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 2(d) Charter freedom of association and the doctrines of vagueness or overbreadth could be invoked against the open-ended 'reasonable steps' and 'may encourage' language plus the Minister's unconstrained extension power.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether conduct met the 'reasonable steps' or 'may encourage' thresholds, though the fixed fines and daily calculation are straightforward once a breach is found.
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.