Bill C-50 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 16, 2009
- Debated in principleSept. 29, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 3, 2009
- Passed the second chamberNov. 4, 2009
- Became lawNov. 5, 2009
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
- Richard NeufeldSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jim Malowayrecognizes the bill helps workers and does not want to reject that help
- Ed Komarnickiexplicitly calls it a good bill that should pass to help workers
- Cathy McLeodExpresses pride in supporting the bill to provide additional benefits to long tenured workers.
- Brian Jeandefends the bill as meaningful assistance delivered by the government during the recession.
- Dean Allisonstates he stands in favour of the bill
- Jacques Gourdespeaks explicitly in favour of extending benefits for long-tenured workers.
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
On 16 September 2009, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development introduced Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase benefits, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill provides additional support through extended EI regular benefits to workers who meet the following criteria: • have contributed to the EI program (paid at least 30 percent of the annual maximum EI premiums) for at least seven out of ten calendar years; and • have received regular EI benefits for no more than 35 weeks in the last five years. Bill C-50 extends regular benefits for eligible long-tenured workers by between 5 and 20 weeks, depending on the number of years they have worked and paid EI premiums. It also increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources · 2009-09-29 · Passed
How it changed on the way
82% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,359 words introduced, 3,404 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core policy of extending regular EI benefits by 5 to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers meeting contribution and prior-claim tests was retained. Technical rules on benefit-period length, date-specific extension tables, and interaction with other statutes were rewritten with added conditions and adjusted phrasing.
- Date ranges and week-addition tiers for certain claimants were aligned and some tiers removed.
Before: “If a claimant was paid less than 36 weeks of regular benefits in the 260 weeks before the beginning of the claimant's benefit period and that benefit period was established during the period that begins on the later of January 4, 2009 and the Sunday before the day that is nine months before the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force and ends on June 5, 2010”
After: “If a claimant was paid less than 36 weeks of regular benefits in the 260 weeks before the beginning of the claimant's benefit period and that benefit period was established during the period that begins on January 4, 2009 and ends on June 5, 2010”
- A new reference to Bill C-50 itself was inserted for interaction with Budget Implementation Act Schedule 10.
After: “the number of weeks of benefits set out in Schedule 10 to the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that applies in respect of a claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of sections 3 to 6 of An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, introduced in the second session of the fortieth Parliament as Bill C-50”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets exact date ranges, contribution thresholds, and week increases using objective counts of prior years and premiums. Cross-references to schedules and other statutes add some external dependency but do not introduce subjective tests.
Open to argument
“subject to the applicable maximums”
The phrase relies on maximums defined elsewhere without restating them here.“as a result of the application of any of subsections (2.1) to (2.4)”
Requires cross-checking multiple external provisions to determine the number.
Clear-cut
“the period that begins on January 4, 2009 and ends on June 5, 2010”
Specifies precise calendar dates with no discretion.“the total number of weeks of benefits shall not exceed 50”
States a hard numerical cap.
Discretion. Almost none; the rules are fixed in the statute with no grants of power to ministers or officials to alter amounts or eligibility.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed numerical criteria and time-limited application make vagueness or overbreadth claims under s. 7 of the Charter difficult to sustain.
Disputing a charge under it. Eligibility turns on verifiable contribution records and fixed dates, leaving little room to dispute whether the statutory conditions are met.
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 2009 Bill C-50 successfully delivered extended EI regular benefits (5-20 weeks) to eligible long-tenured workers during the recession, with an ESDC evaluation finding ~221,000 claimants (29% of eligible) benefited by claiming an average of 10.2 extra weeks and experiencing roughly half the benefit exhaustion rate of other workers. However, uptake was limited relative to the eligible pool, total costs reached $1-1.5 billion, and the measure was temporary with no ongoing statutory reviews or independent audits confirming broader economic impacts.
- Evaluation of the extension of employment insurance regular benefits for long-tenure workers: final report (ESDC, 2014)evaluationAs of March 2012, roughly 221,000 claimants (29% of eligible long-tenured workers) benefited, claiming 10.2 extra weeks on average with an exhaustion rate of 17.1% (about half that of other workers) at an estimated direct cost of $1 billion.
- Evaluation of Initiatives to Extend EI Regular Benefits (ESDC, 2016)evaluationThe related EEILTW measure (part of 2009 stimulus) was implemented as intended alongside the 5-week EDB extension, providing targeted additional support to long-tenured workers with limited prior EI use.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.