Bill C-89 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act
An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 22, 2018
- Debated in principleNov. 23, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 23, 2018
- Passed the second chamberNov. 26, 2018
- Became lawNov. 26, 2018
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
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 22 November 2018, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services (Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-89 provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a mediation process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties. It also empowers the mediator-arbitrator to impose an arbitration process to resolve matters that cannot be resolved through mediation.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
3% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,885 words introduced, 2,880 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill received only formal updates between introduction and royal assent. The date stamp was changed and the minister's name was dropped from the recommendation clause.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact dollar fines, fixed timelines and defined terms for core obligations, yet leaves key decisions to subjective judgment and ministerial discretion. This mix creates clear rules on some points but open-ended standards on others.
Open to argument
“take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply”
Reasonable steps is a subjective standard open to argument over what counts as sufficient.“guided by the need (a) to ensure that the health and safety of the employees is protected”
Guiding principles use broad, value-laden language rather than objective tests.“after any inquiry that the Minister considers necessary”
Leaves the scope of inquiry to the Minister's opinion without fixed criteria.
Clear-cut
“liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a fine of not more than (a) $50,000”
Sets a clear maximum daily fine with no ambiguity in amount.“Within 90 days after the day on which he or she is appointed or any longer period that the Minister may allow”
Fixes a definite 90-day deadline even though extension power exists.“no term of imprisonment is to be imposed in default of payment of a fine”
Explicitly removes one possible penalty with no room for interpretation.
Discretion. The Minister decides appointments when lists do not match, may extend the 90-day period, and the mediator-arbitrator chooses between mediation and final-offer selection or arbitration.
Challenging the law itself. Section 2(d) Charter claims could be brought against the strike ban and imposed arbitration, but back-to-work laws have often survived such challenges.
Disputing a charge under it. Core duties to resume work, the daily fines, and the prohibition on strikes are stated in direct, observable terms that leave little factual dispute once facts are proven.
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?
partly effective
The Act immediately ended the 2018 rotating strikes and resumed postal services as intended, with mediation failing and leading to a binding arbitration award in June 2020 that produced new collective agreements. No dedicated statutory reviews, PBO, or Auditor General evaluations of the legislation's overall effectiveness were identified.
- Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General)courtOntario Superior Court and Court of Appeal dismissed CUPW's constitutional challenge to the Act, finding the strike prohibition justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a minimal impairment in pursuit of a pressing objective.
- Arbitrator Elizabeth MacPherson Award (June 2020)evaluationFollowing failed mediation under the Act, the arbitrator issued awards establishing 4-year collective agreements (retroactive) for urban and RSMC units, incorporating some agreed items and resolving disputed matters.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.