An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (elimination of excise tax on jewellery)

How it changed on the way

79% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (245 words introduced, 297 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill still eliminates the excise tax on jewellery. The method changed from repealing a specific paragraph to replacing the entire section with a provision on clocks.

How precisely it is written

preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill makes a direct textual replacement in Schedule I that removes the jewellery tax and substitutes a narrow clocks rule with fixed percentages and dollar thresholds. All key terms and calculations are objective and numerical.

Clear-cut

• “Section 5 of Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act is replaced by the following:”

  Uses an exact statutory reference and replacement command rather than discretionary language.

• “ten per cent of the amount by which the sale price or duty paid value exceeds fifty dollars”

  Applies a fixed rate and a clear numerical threshold with no subjective qualifiers.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the change is effected solely by the statutory replacement.

Challenging the law itself. The amendment contains no vague standards or broad grants that would engage section 7 vagueness or overbreadth under the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. Liability turns on objective arithmetic comparing sale price or duty-paid value against the fifty-dollar threshold, leaving little room for factual dispute.

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.