Bill S-5 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2006
An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Finland, Mexico and Korea for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 2, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 30, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 22, 2006
- Passed the second chamberDec. 7, 2006
- Became lawDec. 12, 2006
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
- W. David AngusSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Judy Wasylycia-Leisexplicitly backs the bill while noting it is routine
- Diane Ablonczypresents and endorses the bill as part of Canada's tax treaty network
- Massimo Pacettiagrees with the bill on behalf of Liberals
- Wilfred P. MooreSenate · SenatorThe bill provides certainty on taxation rules and helps prevent double taxation, and the committee reviewed it closely.
- Pierre Paquettestates the treaties pose no problem and are acceptable
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
1% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (31,957 words introduced, 31,930 passed).
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on defined terms and numerical limits that reduce ambiguity in most applications. A few phrases still leave room for interpretation by officials or courts.
Open to argument
“make an appropriate adjustment to the amount of tax charged therein on those profits, where that other State considers the adjustment justified”
Subjective judgment on what counts as justified and appropriate invites disagreement.“due regard shall be had to the other provisions of this Convention”
Vague standard without objective criteria for what regard is due.“any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the Convention”
Broad discretion granted to the Minister without defined limits on scope.
Clear-cut
“the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest”
Fixed numerical ceiling removes interpretive debate.“A Contracting State shall not change the profits of an enterprise in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 after six years from the end of the year”
Clear time limit and trigger event create black-and-white rule.“the term "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on”
Explicit definition anchors the concept.
Discretion. The Minister of National Revenue holds open-ended power to issue any regulations deemed necessary to implement either convention.
Challenging the law itself. No obvious vagueness or overbreadth that would engage section 7 or section 2 Charter rights in a facial challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. Defined terms and percentages make most disputes straightforward, but phrases such as 'appropriate adjustment' or 'justified' allow factual arguments over application.
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.