An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors)

How it changed on the way

48% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (297 words introduced, 241 passed).

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill's core purpose and enacting text stayed identical after prorogation. Formal updates covered session numbering, royal assent dates, and a minor title wording swap between 'organ and tissue donors' and 'organ donors'.

• Title wording changed in one reference line.

  Before: “An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ donors)”

  After: “An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors)”

How precisely it is written

preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill uses narrow, specific language to let the CRA collect tax-return data only under provincial agreements and only when the taxpayer has expressly authorized disclosure for donor registries. Defined mechanisms and objective conditions leave little room for argument over scope.

Open to argument

• “any information that the province or territory requires”

  This phrase lets provinces decide the exact data fields, creating minor breadth within an otherwise fixed purpose.

Clear-cut

• “using the returns of income filed under paragraph 150(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act”

  The cross-reference pins collection to one exact statutory source.

• “if, in their return of income, that individual authorized the Agency to provide the information”

  Disclosure is conditioned on an objective, taxpayer-initiated fact rather than official discretion.

Discretion. The Agency 'may' enter agreements and disclose, so the decision to act remains with CRA officials once a province requests it.

Challenging the law itself. The provision creates only permissive authority tied to taxpayer consent and does not directly engage section 8 privacy interests in a way that would readily support a facial Charter challenge.

Disputing a charge under it. The text imposes no duties or prohibitions on individuals, so disputes would centre on whether CRA followed the agreement and authorization steps rather than on individual conduct.

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.