Bill C-6 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act
An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 20, 2011
- Debated in principleJune 25, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 25, 2011
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2011
- Became lawJune 25, 2011
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
- Michael L. MacDonaldSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Lisa RaittIntroduces the bill for second reading to resume postal services.
- Gary GoodyearEmphasizes economic harm from strikes and lockout and urges ending the dispute immediately.
- Michael ChongDefends government intervention as responsible action in a monopoly dispute.
- Dean Del MastroDefends government intervention as necessary after failed negotiations.
- Steven FletcherDescribes the bill as a way to unite Canadians and restore mail service.
- Harold AlbrechtHighlights business harm from the disruption and need to restore service.
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 20 June 2011, the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-6, Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-6 provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services, prohibits strikes and lockouts and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties. The arbitrator’s decision will be used as the new collective agreement.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That this question be now put. · 2011-06-23 · Passed
How it changed on the way
44% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,341 words introduced, 2,280 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions for resuming postal services, banning strikes, and imposing final-offer arbitration stayed intact. Minor adjustments were made to dates, chapter numbering, and assent language during the six-day passage.
- Replaced bill status line with Statutes of Canada heading.
Before: “HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-6”
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2011 CHAPTER 17”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses exact dates, salary percentages, fine amounts and timelines that leave little room for argument. It also relies on subjective phrases such as what the Minister considers appropriate and what is needed for viability or health and safety.
Open to argument
“a person that the Minister considers appropriate”
The appointment standard is entirely subjective and gives the Minister unchecked choice.“the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitive”
These are open-ended policy goals rather than measurable tests.“take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply”
Reasonableness is a subjective standard that invites debate over what counts as sufficient.
Clear-cut
“effective February 1, 2011, salaries in effect as of January 31, 2011 are increased by 1.75%”
The increase is stated as a fixed percentage on a fixed date.“within 90 days after being appointed, or within any longer period that may be specified by the Minister”
The default deadline is a clear number of days.“liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a fine of not more than $100,000”
The maximum daily fine is expressed as a specific dollar amount.
Discretion. The Minister alone decides who is an appropriate arbitrator and may extend the 90-day period for the arbitrator's decision.
Challenging the law itself. The broad and subjective criteria given to the arbitrator could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Phrases such as impede or take all reasonable steps allow factual disputes over whether conduct crossed the line.
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.