An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (parental leave for multiple births or adoptions)

This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Sana Hassainia  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Defeated, as of March 27, 2013
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill.

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to entitle an employee to leave of absence of up to seventy-two weeks in the case of multiple births or adoptions.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which parental benefits can be paid from thirty-five to seventy in the case of multiple births or adoptions.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-464s:

C-464 (2019) Supporting Small Breweries, Wineries and Distilleries Act
C-464 (2010) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)
C-464 (2009) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)
C-464 (2007) Phosphorus Control Act

Votes

March 27, 2013 Failed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Conservative GovernmentStatements By Members

April 15th, 2013 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, March 28 was a dark day for the House of Commons. On that day, three important bills were arbitrarily rejected by the Conservative caucus.

The Conservative caucus overwhelmingly voted down the good intentions of providing justice and giving the Government of Canada the opportunity to do the right thing and support some just and worthy causes. Bill C-380 would have prohibited imports of shark fins. Bill C-459 would have helped consumers, in particular air passengers. Bill C-464 would have supported Canadian mothers in the event of multiple births.

On March 28, the ignorance of our honourable government colleagues was on display again. Even worse, they failed to grasp the negative consequences for which they will be held to account in the next election.

Canada Labour CodePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

March 27th, 2013 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present petitions to this House in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes. Bill C-464, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act , would grant extended parental leave for multiple births or adoptions as a way of levelling the playing field for parents with multiple children.

Speaker's Ruling--Bill C-464Private Members' Business

December 3rd, 2012 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.

As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the November 7, 2012, replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there is one bill that gives the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates. It is:

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (parental leave for multiple births or adoptions), standing in the name of the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for this bill or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

It being 11:05 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.