Bill C-60 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 29, 2013
- Debated in principleMay 7, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 10, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 24, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
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
- Robert Sopuckcongratulates minister and praises measures for jobs growth and prosperity
- Laurie HawnPraises the plan for delivering results, creating jobs and returning to balanced budgets.
- Cathy McLeodSpeaks in favour of the legislation as pro-economic and job-growth.
- Paul CalandraDefends the economic action plan against opposition criticism.
- Shelly GloverCalls the plan a positive blueprint for economic growth and job creation.
- Royal Galipeauexplicitly states support for the bill and calls it right on the mark
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 29 April 2013, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Among other things, it • allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit; • introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit; • makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible; • adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends; • allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation; • extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors; • extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment; • clarif…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2013-05-02 · Passed
How it changed on the way
57% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (35,866 words introduced, 34,988 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The introduced bill and the passed law contain nearly identical provisions implementing the 2013 budget income tax measures. Minor additions appear only in the final version for flow-through mining expenditures.
- Added a replacement paragraph defining flow-through mining expenditure.
After: “(2) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of the definition "flow-through mining expenditure" in sub- section 127(9) of the Act are replaced by the following: (c) an amount in respect of which is renounced in accordance with subsecti”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes tightly defined terms, fixed dollar amounts, and arithmetic formulas with repeated subjective phrases that turn on ministerial or judicial opinion. This produces workable precision on some calculations but leaves broad room for argument on when powers apply or how timelines and reviews are extended.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Tax Court of Canada, are likely to be affected by the determination of the question”
Uses both 'opinion' and 'likely', two subjective standards that require case-by-case argument.“subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate”
Leaves the scope of conditions entirely to judicial discretion without objective limits.“information that the Minister or the Director has requested and that the Minister considers necessary”
Ties the duty to supply information to the Minister's unilateral view of necessity.“deemed to be satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada”
Conclusive deeming based on a 'likely' net-benefit judgment that itself rests on undefined criteria.
Clear-cut
“(iii) $0.213 multiplied by the number of grams of manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes or tobacco sticks”
Fixes an exact multiplier and unit of measurement.
Discretion. Ministers and judges receive repeated power to set conditions, decide what information is necessary, extend review periods, and form opinions on net benefit or likely effects, while fees and many procedural details are left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Provisions using 'likely', 'opinion', and open-ended conditions could be attacked under Charter vagueness or overbreadth doctrines, especially where they affect expression or liberty interests in the Investment Canada Act context.
Disputing a charge under it. Most operative rules combine objective thresholds (dates, dollar figures, refusal to supply information) with discretionary gates, so factual disputes are narrowed even when the ultimate ministerial judgment remains contestable.
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.