Bill C-44 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Helping Families in Need Act
An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 20, 2012
- Debated in principleOct. 2, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 20, 2012
- Passed the second chamberDec. 11, 2012
- Became lawDec. 13, 2012
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
- Kevin Lamoureuxsees value in passing the legislation and notes widespread support.
- Chris Charltonexplicitly states pleasure in supporting the bill multiple times.
- Kellie LeitchShe rises in support of the bill and thanks opposition for supporting it.
- Rodger Cuznerexplicitly states the party supports the bill throughout the process
- Anne-Marie DayShe welcomes the measures as good news and notes the NDP will support them.
- Glenn Thibeaultcalls it important legislation that all can support
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 20 September 2012, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development introduced Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (Helping Families in Need Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow for unpaid leave for an employee whose child becomes critically ill, dies or disappears as a result of a suspected Criminal Code offence. It also makes technical amendments to that Act. Furthermore, the enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide benefits to claimants who are providing care or support to their critically ill child and to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of parental benefits. Lastly, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.
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 · 2012-10-02 · Passed
How it changed on the way
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (10,358 words introduced, 10,095 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The introduced bill text was amended to complete the exception clause denying leave when the employee is charged with the crime or the child was a party to it, and to add a new subsection on the period of leave. Core provisions on critical illness leave, death or disappearance leave, and related EI benefits remained intact with only these targeted additions at royal assent.
- Added full exception denying leave entitlement and started new subsection on leave period.
Before: “An employee is not entitled to a leave of absence if the employee is charg”
After: “(4) An employee is not entitled to a leave of absence if the employee is charged with the crime or it is probable, considering the circum- stances, that the child was a party to the crime. Exception (5) The period during which the employee may take a leave of”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets hard numerical caps on leave and benefit weeks and supplies clear definitions for child, parent and crime. Some scope remains open through cross-references to regulations and the Employment Insurance Act.
Open to argument
“other than one that is excluded by the regulations”
Leaves the boundary of covered crimes to future regulatory choice rather than fixing it in the statute.“In the circumstances set out under the Employment Insurance Act”
Incorporates external, changeable rules instead of stating the test directly.“a class of medical practitioners that is prescribed under that Act”
Defers the list of who may issue certificates to administrative prescription.
Clear-cut
“An extension under subsection (2) must not result in the period being longer than 52 weeks.”
Fixes an objective, numerical ceiling that requires no further judgment.“"child" means a person who is under 18 years of age.”
Supplies a bright-line age test.
Discretion. Ministers and officials retain power to exclude crimes by regulation, prescribe qualifying medical practitioners, and set the exact circumstances under the Employment Insurance Act.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated cross-references to regulations and another statute could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter, though the numerical caps themselves are clear.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations are expressed as strict week limits and defined terms, so disputes would centre on factual application rather than interpretive debate.
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.