Bill C-40 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006
An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 5, 2006
- Debated in principleJan. 30, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 15, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 13, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Michael A. MeighenSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Thierry St-Cyrlists reasons the Bloc Québécois supports the bill's GST and excise fixes
- Pierre Paquettestates the Bloc Québécois will support the technical but logical bill
- Paul CrêteHe describes the bill's intent as correcting weaknesses in the GST and excise tax.
- Bernard BigrasHe states he and his party will support the bill.
- Jim Petersonstates the party supports the bill as a natural evolution of GST policy
- Lynne Yelichdefends the government's sales tax measures against Liberal criticism
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
How it changed on the way
74% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (40,582 words introduced, 39,568 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core amendments to definitions and rules in the Excise Tax Act remained intact from introduction to royal assent. A provision on supplies by small supplier divisions was expanded to cover additional exempt service scenarios, and formal elements such as assent date and chapter number were added.
- The clause describing exempt supplies of clearing services was completed and extended.
Before: “for the purpose of making a supply of exemp”
After: “for the purpose of making a supply of exempt services to (i) an unrelated party, or (ii) a supplier that is a member of a closely related group of which the related pur- chaser is a member and that ac”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on defined terms, numerical thresholds like 90 percent, fixed dates, and cross-references to other statutes, which allow quick application in most cases. However, repeated use of 'reasonably be attributed' and similar phrases introduces subjective judgment that can prolong disputes.
Open to argument
“that can reasonably be attributed to the excluded services”
Subjective test invites argument over allocation of consideration between periods.“that can reasonably be attributed to that property or service”
Leaves open how much of a bundled price belongs to each item, requiring factual debate.
Clear-cut
“not less than 90% of the value and number of the issued and outstanding shares”
Clear numerical test that can be verified from share registers without opinion.“ning before September 14, 2001 and ending on or after that day”
Fixed calendar date creates an objective dividing line for separate supplies.
Discretion. Several provisions delegate details to regulations, such as the Specified Motor Vehicle (GST/HST) Regulations and the Financial Services (GST/HST) Regulations, and to provincial authorities for collection mechanics.
Challenging the law itself. Technical tax amendments with defined terms and no obvious vagueness doctrine or Charter section 7 or 8 issues on the face of the text.
Disputing a charge under it. Precise definitions and thresholds make most breaches straightforward to prove, but 'reasonably attributed' language allows factual disputes over amounts.
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.