Bill C-294 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 17, 2006
- Debated in principleJune 7, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 30, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian Fitzpatrick5 interventions in debateMoved the bill multiple times and noted its unanimous support while explaining its benefits for young athletes.
- Mr. Bradley Trost2 interventions in debatePraised the multi-party effort to advance the legislation and its history.
- David ChristophersonStated general NDP support for the bill despite macro-level criticism.
- Daryl KrampHe heartily commends the colleague for bringing forth this bill and notes the sacrifices made by parents and communities.
- Mike WallaceDescribed all-party support obtained in committee for the bill's tax changes.
- Jay HillCalled for unanimous consent to pass the bill at report stage.
- Luc MaloHe states the bill's purpose is to support elite athletes and praises young people striving for excellence.
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 Finance. · 2006-06-07 · Passed
How it changed on the way
95% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (336 words introduced, 710 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill retained its core purpose of excluding allowances for board and lodging from employment income for participants in youth sports programs but narrowed eligibility through a lower fixed cap, stricter organization rules, and added conditions on purpose and residence. It also inserted new indexing language and a coordinating amendment with another bill.
- Maximum monthly amount lowered and indexing removed from the allowance rule.
Before: “to a maximum of $350 for each month of the year, adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index (within the meaning assigned by subsection 117.1(4))”
After: “to a maximum total of $300 for each month of the year”
- New restrictions added on who may receive the allowance and its purpose.
After: “the allowance is in respect of the taxpayer's participation or membership and is not attributable to services of the taxpayer as a coach, instructor trainer, referee, administrator or other similar occupation”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The amendment sets a fixed dollar cap, a clear age limit, and four enumerated conditions that must all be satisfied for the exclusion to apply. A few phrases still require judgment calls about reasonableness and similarity.
Clear-cut
“to a maximum total of $300 for each month of the year”
Supplies a hard numeric ceiling that leaves no room for interpretation.“restricted to persons under 21 years of age”
States an objective age threshold that can be verified by date of birth.“the employer is a registered charity or a non-profit organization described in paragraph 149(1)(l)”
Cross-references an existing statutory category that is already defined elsewhere in the Act.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; eligibility is determined entirely by the statutory conditions.
Challenging the law itself. The phrases 'reasonably attributable' and 'similar occupation' could be attacked for vagueness under section 7 of the Charter, though the narrow subject-matter and fixed dollar limit reduce overbreadth risk.
Disputing a charge under it. A taxpayer could readily dispute whether an allowance meets the 'reasonably attributable' test or whether a role qualifies as 'similar,' but the remaining conditions are binary and easy to verify.
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.