Bill C-48 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (natural resources)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 13, 2003
- Debated in principleSept. 30, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 21, 2003
- Passed the second chamberNov. 6, 2003
- Became lawNov. 7, 2003
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
87% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,638 words introduced, 6,441 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill kept its core purpose of implementing the 2003 Budget changes to resource income taxation but altered transitional rules and added the royal assent date. Subsection 10 was replaced with new text on how to read a 25% reference in the Act.
- Added royal assent date to the title.
After: “[Assented to 7th November, 2003]”
- Replaced incomplete subsection 10 with new transitional rule on paragraph 12(1)(z.5).
Before: “(10) For each taxation year that ends after 2002 and begins before 2”
After: “(10) For each taxation year that ends after 2002 and begins before 2007, the reference to ''25%'' in paragraph 12(1)(z.5) of the Act is to be read as a”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses detailed lists, fixed percentages, exact dates and defined resource categories to set out what counts as royalties, expenses and credits. Some repeated phrases such as 'can reasonably be considered' still leave room for argument over borderline cases.
Open to argument
“can reasonably be expected to receive”
Forward-looking test invites disputes about future government assistance.“to the extent that it can reasonably be regarded as a cost of acquiring the lease”
Reasonableness qualifier on allocation of payments creates interpretive leeway.
Clear-cut
“that proportion of 100% that the number of days in the taxation year that are before 2003 is of the number of days in the taxation year”
Exact arithmetic formula tied to calendar days removes discretion.“Subsections (1) to (3) apply to taxation years that begin after 2006”
Clear effective-date rule leaves no doubt about timing.
Discretion. Almost none; the amendments set statutory percentages, dates and definitions with only minor references to regulations for prescribed amounts.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed tax rules with objective triggers engage no obvious Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims.
Disputing a charge under it. Taxpayers could dispute application of the 'reasonably be considered' tests but would face the detailed statutory lists and formulas.
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.