Bill C-13 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act
An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 12, 2010
- Debated in principleMay 7, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 16, 2010
- Passed the second chamberJune 27, 2010
- Became lawJune 29, 2010
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
- Nicole EatonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Mr. Michael SavageDescribes the bill as important for those it assists and notes it helps military families.
- Jim MalowayCalls the bill important and notes all parties are agreeable to it.
- Scott SimmsStates the bill means a lot for Canadian Forces members and reservists.
- Peter StofferDescribes the bill as a good initiative to protect parental leave interrupted by duty.
- Josée BeaudinShe states they will support the bill because it fixes an injustice in the EI system.
- Claude GravelleStates explicitly that the party will support the bill to avoid penalizing troops on parental leave.
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 12 April 2010, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development introduced Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Fairness for Military Families) (Employment Insurance) Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-13 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (641 words introduced, 884 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The core extension of EI benefit and parental periods for Canadian Forces members was retained with only minor wording tweaks. The main change was replacing a narrow non-retroactive clause with detailed transitional, special-case and other-special-case rules that extend coverage to many claimants whose benefit periods began before royal assent.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses fixed numbers such as 104 weeks and ties extensions directly to the number of weeks of deferral or return to duty. It relies on external regulations under the National Defence Act to identify the triggering events.
Open to argument
“in accordance with regulations made under the National Defence Act”
The operative trigger is defined by reference to another statute's regulations rather than by text inside this Act.
Clear-cut
“the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks during which the claimant's parental leave is deferred or the claimant is directed to return to duty”
The extension length is calculated by a simple count of weeks rather than a discretionary standard.“No extension under subsection (3) or (3.01) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks.”
A hard numerical ceiling removes any argument about maximum duration.“This Act comes into force on the first Sunday after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
A single objective calendar rule fixes the start date without ministerial discretion.
Discretion. Almost none is left to ministers or officials; the only external reference is the pre-existing National Defence Act regulations that identify when leave is deferred or duty is ordered.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions confer benefits through mechanical arithmetic and contain no vague prohibitions or standards that could engage section 7 vagueness or overbreadth claims under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Eligibility turns on verifiable facts (dates of deferral or return to duty and the 104-week arithmetic) rather than subjective judgments, so disputes are limited to straightforward record evidence.
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.