Bill C-22 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another Act related to the Excise Tax Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 21, 2001
- Debated in principleApril 23, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 14, 2001
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 2001
- Became lawJune 13, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (150,707 words introduced, 148,573 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core rules on employee stock option agreements, identical securities ordering, and exchanges of securities remained the same from introduction to royal assent. The main visible difference is the addition of the royal assent date and minor truncation adjustments in the final subsection.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact dollar amounts, fractions, dates and numbered conditions with repeated use of 'reasonably be considered' and similar phrases. This creates clear rules in many places but leaves room for argument over eligibility and purpose in others.
Open to argument
“ensures appropriate treatment of FEDE in computing foreign tax credits”
Uses the subjective word 'appropriate' without a defined test.“a main purpose of which can reasonably be considered to have been to enable an unrelated person to obtain the benefit”
Relies on a reasonableness judgment about purpose rather than an objective list of facts.
Clear-cut
“the greater of (I) $1,000 multiplied by the number of months (to a maximum of ten)”
Supplies a fixed dollar figure and a clear monthly cap.“on a day that is no later than 30 days after the day that includes the particular time”
States an exact 30-day window with no discretion.“the fraction in paragraph 38(a) of the Act, as enacted by subsection 22(1), that applies to the taxpayer for the year”
Cross-references a specific statutory fraction rather than leaving the rate open.
Discretion. Limited discretion remains for the Minister to receive designations or prescribed forms, but most calculations and cut-offs are fixed in the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. The many numerical thresholds and defined terms make a successful vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. Taxpayers can readily dispute whether a purpose 'can reasonably be considered' to be tax-driven, but bright-line date and dollar rules 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.