Bill C-59 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 7, 2015
- Debated in principleMay 25, 2015
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 15, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2015
- Became lawJune 22, 2015
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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures (short title: Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1), was introduced and read for the first time in the House of Commons on 7 May 2015. As its full and short titles indicate, the purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the government’s overall budget policy, introduced in the House of Commons on 21 April 2015. Bill C-59 is the first implementation bill of the April 2015 budget. Established legislative practice would have this bill followed by a second budget implementation bill. However, given that a federal election is scheduled to take place in October 2015, it is possible that there will be only one bill implementing the April 2015 budget. Bill C-59 is divided into three parts. Part 1 would implement income tax measures that were proposed or referenced in the budget of 2…
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
61% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (48,259 words introduced, 47,063 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill saw 61% of its introduced text changed by royal assent, mainly through refinements to income tax formulas and added statutory language. Core budget measures on tax credits and RRIF withdrawals remained intact with only technical clarifications.
- Added chapter number, assent date, and statutes reference to the enacted version.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2015 CHAPTER 36 An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures ASSENTED TO 23rd JUNE, 2015”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes highly specific numerical limits, formulas, age thresholds and defined terms with repeated subjective tests such as 'reasonably be concluded' and 'reasonably expected'. This produces pockets of black-and-white rules alongside open-ended discretion that invites argument.
Open to argument
“it can reasonably be concluded, having regard to all the circumstances, that a significant part of the capital gain is attributable to the fact that dividends were not paid”
The 'reasonably be concluded' and 'significant part' tests are subjective and fact-intensive.“is likely to be, for a long and continuous period of indefinite duration, dependent on others for signifi”
Multiple qualifiers ('likely', 'long and continuous', 'indefinite', 'significantly more') lack objective benchmarks.“the housing unit is ordinarily inhabited, or is reasonably expected to be ordinarily inhabited, at any time in the taxation year”
The 'reasonably expected' standard introduces prediction and judgment rather than a clear factual trigger.
Clear-cut
“for 2009 to 2012, $5,000”
Exact dollar amounts and fixed calendar years leave no interpretive room.“who has attained the age of 65 years before the end of the taxation year”
Bright-line age and timing rule is objective and easily verified.“the lesser of $50,000 and one half of the absolute value of the positive or negative amount determined by the formula”
Hard cap combined with a mechanical formula produces a determinate result.
Discretion. Ministers receive explicit power to register foreign charities for 24 months, to administer the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act by automated electronic means, and to make or withhold passport decisions on national-security grounds.
Challenging the law itself. The national-security passport provisions engage mobility and liberty interests under ss. 6 and 7 of the Charter and rely on broad terms such as 'national security' that could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. Taxpayers facing the 'reasonably concluded' or 'significantly more assistance' tests can readily dispute the factual conclusions or the weighing of circumstances, while the numeric formulas are harder to contest.
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.