Bill C-31 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 28, 2014
- Debated in principleApril 8, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 12, 2014
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 2014
- Became lawJune 18, 2014
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
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
A Legislative Summary is currently being prepared for this bill by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament. A pre-release version of this publication is available to parliamentarians and their staff, and can be obtained by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Meanwhile, the following executive summary is available On 28 March 2014, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it (a) increases the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit; (b) expands the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes; (c) introduces the search and rescue volunteers tax credit; (d) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax cre…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
51% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (113,758 words introduced, 111,616 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core income tax measures from the introduced bill were retained with only minor wording refinements. The main change was the addition of automatic GST/HST credit enrollment for eligible filers.
- Added automatic GST/HST credit payment for eligible individuals filing returns.
After: “(3) An eligible individual in relation to a month specified for a taxation year who files a return of income for the taxation year is deemed to have paid during the specified month”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses exact dollar amounts, hour thresholds, and closed lists of Criminal Code offences to define credits and disclosure triggers. Some judgment calls remain around what counts as reasonable grounds or an appropriate police force.
Open to argument
“an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence”
The phrase leaves open which organizations qualify and what circumstances trigger disclosure.“if the official has reasonable grounds to believe that the information will afford evidence”
This imports a subjective belief standard rather than an objective checklist.“can reasonably be considered to be relevant to a determination”
The reasonableness qualifier invites argument over relevance.
Clear-cut
“performs in the year not less than 200 hours of service”
A bright-line numerical test removes discretion on eligibility.“sections 119 to 121, 123 to 125 and 426 of the Criminal Code”
Specific statutory references create an exhaustive, verifiable list.“extend to 90 days the time for making a request for a review”
A fixed calendar period replaces any open-ended standard.
Discretion. Officials decide whether reasonable grounds exist for disclosure and which police organizations are appropriate; regulations may further define virtual currencies and prescribed services.
Challenging the law itself. The combination of reasonable-grounds language and broad disclosure powers could be attacked under Charter sections 7 and 8 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether 200 hours were truly performed or whether listed offences were actually engaged, but the numerical and statutory lists 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
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.