Bill C-316 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2011
- Debated in principleNov. 30, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 16, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 24, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Pierre-Hugues BoisvenuSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Mr. Richard Harris8 interventions in debatesponsors and defends the bill to remove preferential EI access for convicts
- Kellie LeitchExplicitly stated support for the bill with only friendly amendments.
- Ed Komarnickirefuses to support amendments that would delete the bill
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.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources · 2011-11-30 · Passed
How it changed on the way
100% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (201 words introduced, 400 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent changed direction
The bill as introduced repealed all extensions of qualifying and benefit periods for time spent in jail. As passed, it instead keeps the extensions but limits them to claimants not found guilty of the offence.
- Repeal of paragraph 8(2)(b) was replaced with conditional text.
Before: “Paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act is repealed.”
After: “Paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act is replaced by the following: (b) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and was not found guilty of the offence for which the person was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;”
- Repeal of paragraph 10(10)(a) was replaced with conditional text.
Before: “Paragraph 10(10)(a) of the Act is repealed.”
After: “Paragraph 10(10)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and was not found guilty of the offence for which the claimant was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;”
- Repeal of paragraph 152.11(11)(a) was replaced with conditional text.
Before: “Paragraph 152.11(11)(a) of the Act is repealed.”
After: “Paragraph 152.11(11)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and were not found guilty of the offence for which they were being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill replaces three paragraphs with nearly identical objective conditions that limit EI extensions to cases where the person was confined but not found guilty of the specific offence or any arising from the same transaction. It adds a clear transitional rule and a fixed coming-into-force date with no subjective language or open discretion.
Clear-cut
“was not found guilty of the offence for which the person was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction”
Uses a binary factual outcome (not found guilty) tied to a specific offence and transaction, leaving little room for argument.“This Act comes into force on the first Sunday after the day on which it receives royal assent”
Fixes the start date by an objective calendar rule instead of leaving it to ministerial order.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all changes are made by direct statutory text.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions contain no vague or overbroad language that would readily engage section 7 Charter vagueness concerns.
Disputing a charge under it. A claimant can dispute application simply by producing court records showing they were not found guilty of the offence or any related offence.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.