Bill C-47 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act
A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 30, 2010
- Debated in principleNov. 4, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 7, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
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
- Elizabeth (Beth) MarshallSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ted Menziespresents the bill as a key component of the economic action plan to sustain recovery
- Lois Brownhighlights positive changes to assist vulnerable people via tax measures
- Andrew SaxtonPresents the bill positively as a key element of the economic action plan that helped Canada weather the recession.
- Steven Fletcherdefends budget handling and cites positive economic assessment
- Cathy McLeoddefends the government's comprehensive strategy and funding as important
- Mr. Richard Harrisdefends the economic action plan and its job creation results against criticism
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 30 September 2010, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-47, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures (Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 implements a number of income tax measures proposed in the March 4, 2010 Budget. Among other things it: • allows for the sharing of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit for eligible shared custody parents; • allows Registered Retirement Savings Plan proceeds to be transferred to a Registered Disability Savings Plan on a tax-deferred basis; • implements disbursement quota reform for registered charities; • better targets the tax incentives in place for employee stock options; • expands the availability of accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation; • adjusts the capital cost allowance rate for television set-top boxes to better reflect the useful life of these assets; • clarifies the definition of a principal-business corporation for the purposes of the rules relating to Canadian Renewable and…
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 Finance. · 2010-11-04 · Passed
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (43,912 words introduced, 42,790 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with 69% of the introduced text removed or replaced, mainly in procedural headers and some Income Tax Act clauses on employee benefits and securities. Core measures on tax sharing, RRSP transfers, and clean energy incentives were retained with only minor refinements before royal assent.
- Header updated from first reading details to chapter and assent date.
Before: “C-47 Third Session, Fortieth Parliament, 59 Elizabeth II, 2010 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-47 A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010”
After: “Third Session, Fortieth Parliament, 59 Elizabeth II, 2010 STATUTES OF CANADA 2010 CHAPTER 25 A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures ASSENTED TO 15th DECEMBER, 2010”
- Added reference to Order in council and chapter numbering in the passed version.
Before: “Order in council 3rd Session, 40th Parliament, 59 Elizabeth II, 2010”
After: “59 ELIZABETH II —————— CHAPTER 25”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact formulas, dates, and defined terms with repeated subjective tests. This creates pockets of clarity alongside areas open to argument over reasonableness and purpose.
Open to argument
“that may reasonably be regarded as having been contributed to enable the trust to”
Uses a subjective reasonableness standard instead of an objective test.“it may reasonably be considered that a purpose of the transaction was to avoid or unduly delay”
Relies on inferred purpose and a vague 'unduly delay' threshold.“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to have been contributed”
Creates a rebuttable presumption that invites factual disputes.
Clear-cut
“A × B × 0.035/365”
Supplies a fixed mathematical formula for the disbursement quota.“after March 3, 2010”
Uses a specific calendar date to fix eligibility.“The total amounts that may be deducted under subsections (4) and (5) in respect of transitional eligible proceeds received in respect of the death of a taxpayer shall not exceed the total transitional eligible proceeds received”
States a clear numerical cap tied to defined proceeds.
Discretion. Officials and regulations retain power to decide what counts as 'reasonably regarded', 'prescribed factors', and 'prescribed payments', and to apply actuarial reports as presumptive evidence.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions are technical tax rules with defined terms and formulas, offering little obvious foothold for a Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A taxpayer could dispute whether a contribution or transaction met the various 'reasonably regarded' or purpose tests, though the formulas and caps limit the scope of argument.
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
No dedicated statutory reviews, PBO reports, Auditor General audits, departmental evaluations, or peer-reviewed studies were identified assessing the effectiveness of the specific 2010 income tax measures in Bill C-47. Broader Economic Action Plan implementation received positive AG commentary on timeliness, with limited court activity on shared-custody rules and unrelated later DQ research.
- Fall 2010 Report of the Auditor General of CanadaauditAudited Economic Action Plan programs (including stimulus elements) were designed and delivered timely with eligibility met, though job reporting was anecdotal.
- Morrissey v. The Queen (2019 FCA 56) and Lavrinenko v. Canada (2019 FCA 51)courtFederal Court of Appeal clarified 'near equal' shared custody definition for CCB/CCTB sharing, confirming ongoing use and interpretation of the 2010 provision.
- Imagine Canada Disbursement Quota Research (2023 changes)studyAnalysis of post-2023 DQ increase (not the 2010 reform) showed foundations disbursed ~$711M more, mostly due to the rule change.
- CRA RDSP rollover guidanceevaluationDescribes operational rules for RRSP-to-RDSP transfers but provides no impact assessment or effectiveness data.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.