Bill C-38 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 26, 2012
- Debated in principleMay 14, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 18, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 28, 2012
- Became lawJune 28, 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
- JoAnne L. ButhSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Cheryl GallantSpeaks in support of the economic action plan and budget measures in the bill.
- Lois BrownMember expresses pride in supporting the bill focused on jobs and growth.
- Paul CalandraHe speaks positively about the next phase of the economic action plan in the bill.
- Ms. Candice HoeppnerShe states she is pleased to speak in support of the bill and praises the government's fiscal management.
- Royal GalipeauPraises the government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity after the recession.
- Mike WallaceHe speaks positively about the budget implementation bill's focus on jobs, balanced budgets and future prosperity.
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
The Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for budget implementation bills. The following is a short summary: On 26 April 2012, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures (Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Among other things, it • introduces a temporary measure to allow certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; • extends, for one year, the temporary Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors; • allows corporations to make split and late eligible dividend designations; • makes the salary of the Governor General taxable and adjusts that salary; • allows a designated partner of a partnership to provide a waiver on behalf of all partners to extend the time limit for issuing a determination in respect of the partnership; • amends the penalty applicable to promoters of…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2012-05-03 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- removes provisionsPierrette RinguetteDelete the clause changing Old Age Security.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 28, 2012 · Senate record
- adds review or sunsetPierrette RinguetteRequire the minister to submit the definition of suitable employment to both houses of Parliament for oversight.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 28, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
55% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (133,446 words introduced, 130,226 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill received technical fixes and formatting updates for the final statutes version, including correction of a wording error in the Division 7 description and addition of chapter and assent details. Core tax and disability savings plan measures stayed intact with only minor phrasing adjustments.
- Corrected wording error in Division 7 description of personal information provisions.
Before: “that are the substantially the same as those that are added to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act.”
After: “that are substantially the same as those that are added to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act.”
- Added chapter number, assent date, and statutes formatting to the passed version.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2012 CHAPTER 19 An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures ASSENTED TO 29th JUNE, 2012”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The supplied text relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects' and 'in the opinion of the Minister' that require case-by-case judgment. It also delegates many details to regulations or ministerial discretion rather than fixing clear numerical or objective rules.
Open to argument
“likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”
This standard is subjective and invites prolonged debate over what counts as 'significant' or 'likely' in any given project.“If, in the opinion of the Minister, the circumstances are such that it would be just and equitable”
The phrase turns on the Minister's personal view of equity instead of an objective test.“within such reasonable time stipulated in the demand”
Reasonableness is undefined and leaves the deadline open to argument.“if it can reasonably be considered that a purpose of the gift is to support the political activities”
The test depends on what a decision-maker considers reasonable rather than a fixed criterion.
Clear-cut
“Every tax preparer who fails to file a return of income as required by subsection 150.1(2.3) is liable to a penalty equal to”
The penalty amount and trigger are stated as a fixed dollar figure.“a 24-month period that includes the time at which Her Majesty in right of Canada has made a gift”
The registration window is fixed at a specific number of months.“on January 1, 2013”
The coming-into-force date is an exact calendar day.
Discretion. Ministers, the Agency, and regulations decide what projects require assessment, what counts as significant effects, registration of foreign charities, and the content of many forms and demands.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'likely', 'significant', 'reasonable', and 'in the opinion of' creates vagueness that could be challenged under section 7 of the Charter for lack of fair notice.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching the environmental or tax-shelter rules can readily dispute whether the subjective thresholds of likelihood, significance, or reasonableness were actually met.
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.