Bill C-45 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012
A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 18, 2012
- Debated in principleOct. 30, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 5, 2012
- Passed the second chamberDec. 13, 2012
- Became lawDec. 13, 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
- Chris AlexanderPresents the bill as meeting critical challenges through innovation and job creation policies.
- Robert SopuckPraises the bill's focus on jobs, growth and environmental investments.
- Shelly Gloverproud of government focus on economy and jobs through the act.
- Jeff WatsonHighlights job creation and low-tax measures in the bill.
- Mark AdlerPresents the bill as part of a positive economic plan for jobs and growth.
- Cathy McLeodUrges all members to support the bill as a technical piece of legislation.
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 18 October 2012, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures (Jobs and Growth Act, 2012), 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 (a) amends the rules relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) by (i) replacing the 10-year repayment rule applying to withdrawals with a proportional repayment rule, (ii) allowing investment income earned in a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to be transferred on a tax-free basis to the RESP beneficiary’s RDSP, (iii) extending the period that RDSPs of beneficiaries who cease to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit may remain open in certain circumstances, (iv) amending the rules relating to maximum and minimum withdrawals, and (v) amending certain RDSP administrative rules; (b) includes an employer’s contributions to a group sickness or ac…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2012-10-25 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- removes provisionsSenator DayDelete Part 4 and Schedules 1 and 2 from the bill.Voted down · Dec. 13, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
65% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (122,545 words introduced, 119,417 passed).
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill was divided by House order so that only part of the original C-45 proceeded as C-45 while the rest became C-46. Some technical wording on election filing deadlines and related procedures was expanded in the version that received royal assent.
- House order divided the bill into two separate acts.
Before: “NOTE Pursuant to the Order of the House of Commons on October 19, 2012 to divide Bill C-45 as tabled in the House of Commons on October 18, 2012, into two parts (C-45 and C-46).”
- First-reading date was replaced by royal-assent date.
Before: “FIRST READING, OCTOBER 18, 2012”
After: “ASSENTED TO 14th DECEMBER, 2012”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on explicit formulas, fixed dollar amounts, defined terms, and calendar deadlines to govern tax calculations and elections. A few recurring phrases introduce judgment calls about what is reasonable.
Open to argument
“that may reasonably be considered to be in respect of interest described in A”
Requires subjective assessment of connection between income inclusions and interest.“can reasonably be expected to receive”
Leaves open what future government assistance a taxpayer should anticipate.“as may reasonably be regarded as being attributable at that time”
Invites argument over how much of a partnership interest's value stems from specific assets.
Clear-cut
“the penalty in respect of an election referred to in that subsection is the amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying $100 by the number of months”
Supplies an arithmetic formula with no discretion on the rate or base.“on or before the day that is three years after that day”
Fixes a bright-line filing extension with no open-ended ministerial power.“that proportion shall be computed as if the partnership had income for that period in the amount of $1,000,000”
Uses a statutory default figure to avoid zero-division disputes.
Discretion. The Minister receives filed elections and certain tax-sharing information but operates under fixed statutory timelines and penalty formulas that leave little interpretive latitude.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed formulas, defined terms and numeric thresholds make successful vagueness or overbreadth arguments under section 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused taxpayers could contest whether an amount 'may reasonably be considered' to relate to interest or assistance, though the surrounding arithmetic rules narrow the dispute.
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.