Bill C-4 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2
A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 22, 2013
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 9, 2013
- Passed the second chamberDec. 11, 2013
- Became lawDec. 11, 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
- Harold AlbrechtSpeaks explicitly in favour of the bill and defends the economic action plan.
- Mark AdlerPraises the bill's tax cuts, job creation and support for small businesses.
- Andrew Saxtonpraises the legislation as crucial for growth and proud of the steps taken
- Stella AmblerEndorses the bill's focus on jobs, growth and balanced budgets.
- David WilksWelcomes the bill's provisions on the Dominion Coal Blocks in his riding.
- Larry MillerCalls the bill important economic legislation that benefits Canadians and builds on job creation success.
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 22 October 2013, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2), 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 • increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexes the new limit to inflation; • streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund a contribution made to a Registered Pension Plan as a result of a reasonable error; • extends the reassessment period for reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters when information returns are not filed properly and on time; • phases out the federal Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations tax credit; • ensures that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate; • ensures that the tax consequences of disposing of a property cannot be avoided by entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of the property; • ensures…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2013-10-24 · Passed
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (93,754 words introduced, 91,311 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core income-tax rules on loss restriction events and derivative forward agreements were retained with only technical refinements. Parliament added clarifying language on over-allotment options and adjusted one notional-amount formula while removing some transitional carve-outs that appeared in the introduced bill.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The supplied text consists mainly of dense tax definitions and formulas that use exact percentages, dates, averages over calendar months, and algebraic expressions to fix liability. A few labour provisions insert subjective phrases that leave outcomes to administrative judgment.
Open to argument
“any longer period that the Public Service Labour Relations Board considers appropriate”
Replaces a fixed limitation period with an open-ended discretionary standard.
Clear-cut
“has an interest as a beneficiary under the trust with a fair market value that is not less than 25% of the fair market value of all interests”
Uses a bright-line 25 % threshold and fair-market-value comparison.
Discretion. The Public Service Labour Relations Board may extend grievance filing periods, and tax officials retain interpretive latitude over reasonableness tests and arm’s-length determinations, but the core numerical and definitional rules leave little room for ministerial regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed formulas and defined terms make vagueness or overbreadth claims under s. 7 of the Charter difficult to sustain.
Disputing a charge under it. Taxpayers can dispute factual inputs to the formulas or the application of the 25 % threshold, but the objective tests limit the scope of such arguments.
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.