Bill C-28 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 21, 2007
- Debated in principleDec. 4, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 13, 2007
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2007
- Became lawDec. 14, 2007
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
- Dean Del MastroDefends corporate tax cuts as necessary for competitiveness and criticizes NDP opposition.
- Ted MenziesPresents the bill positively at third reading and highlights debt reduction and tax measures.
- Dave Van KesterenHe defends the GST cuts for benefiting restaurant workers and the broader economy.
- Ken EppHe defends tax rate reductions using the Laffer curve and challenges NDP criticism of them.
- Michael ChongDefends record federal infrastructure spending under the government.
- Rick NorlockDefends the bill as providing concrete help to low income Canadians through the working income tax benefit.
- Gordon O'ConnorHe praises the broad-based business tax reductions as making Canada the most competitive in the G-7.
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. · 2007-12-04 · Passed
How it changed on the way
83% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (117,632 words introduced, 109,771 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Most GST/HST and input tax credit rules on food and entertainment remained the same from introduction to royal assent. The main addition completed and expanded the rules for when a person must switch to monthly filing.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many exact formulas, dollar thresholds, dates and cross-references that fix the rules in black and white. At the same time it repeatedly inserts subjective tests such as 'reasonably be considered' and 'can reasonably be regarded as' that require later judgment.
Open to argument
“that can reasonably be regarded as applicable to the re-characterized income”
Leaves the link between tax paid and income to subjective assessment.“the proportion that the member's share of the total income or loss of the partnership for the partnership's fiscal period is of the partnership's total income or loss for that period”
Uses a variable proportion that must be calculated after the fact and can be disputed.
Clear-cut
“A × [B - (C × D)]”
Defines the amount by a mathematical formula.
Discretion. No power is expressly delegated to ministers or regulations; interpretation of the many 'reasonably' phrases falls to the Canada Revenue Agency and courts.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions are technical tax rules with no obvious Charter rights engaged and no broad discretionary language that would support a vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A taxpayer could argue that a 'reasonably' test was misapplied, but the surrounding formulas and defined terms limit the scope of such disputes.
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.