Bill C-26 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 2001
An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2001
- Debated in principleApril 27, 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
65% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (10,402 words introduced, 10,246 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill received royal assent on 14 June 2001 with added definitions clarifying manufactured and partially manufactured tobacco. Core duty, stamping, and warehousing rules stayed intact but 65 percent of the introduced wording was revised or expanded during passage.
- Added definition excluding partially manufactured tobacco and foreign brand tobacco from certain rules.
After: “''manufactured tobacco'' « tabac fabriqué » ''manufactured tobacco'' does not include partially manufactured tobacco or foreign brand tobacco.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies on many defined terms, exact percentages such as 1.5 percent, fixed dollar amounts for fines and taxes, and clear timing rules that leave little room for argument. A few provisions still hand discretionary power to the Minister or Governor in Council through regulations or unspecified terms and conditions.
Open to argument
“on such terms and conditions and in such manner as the Minister may specify”
This phrase gives the Minister open-ended power to set conditions without statutory limits.“in any manner that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe”
The filing method is left entirely to future regulations rather than stated in the Act.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than the greater of $1,000 and triple the amount by which”
Exact minimum and maximum penalties expressed in dollars leave no interpretive gap.“A duty shall not be levied under this section on manufactured tobacco imported by an individual for their personal use if it is stamped in accordance with the Excise Act and duty has been imposed on it under section 200 of that Act”
The exception is limited to two objective factual conditions that can be checked directly.
Discretion. The Minister may set terms and conditions for deductions and the Governor in Council may prescribe filing methods and stamping requirements by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed numerical thresholds and defined terms make it difficult to argue the provisions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Clear definitions, fixed percentages, and objective stamping or quantity tests allow an accused to verify compliance or breach from the statutory text alone.
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.