Bill S-3 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010
An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 22, 2010
- Debated in principleMarch 30, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 3, 2010
- Passed the second chamberNov. 22, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
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
- Stephen GreeneSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- John Cannispromotes avoiding double taxation with Greece as part of the bill
- Ted MenziesCalls it important legislation and notes unanimous committee support.
- Hon. Joseph Volpeframes the bill in context of nation-building and economic probity without objections
- Robert Carrierbacks implementing the tax conventions to avoid double taxation and exchange information
- Scott BrisonExplicitly states Liberal Party support for the bill.
- Paul CalandraDefends the bill and presses others to support it.
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.
What it set out to do
The Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for bills that implement treaties, conventions, agreements or administrative arrangements bills. The following is a short summary: On 23 March 2010, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income (Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010) in the Senate and it was given first reading. This enactment implements the most recent tax treaties that Canada has concluded with Colombia, Greece and Turkey. Since a tax treaty contains taxation rules that are different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it becomes effective only after being given precedence over domestic legislation by an Act of Parliament such as this one. The treaties implemented reflect efforts to expand Canada’s tax treaty network. Those treaties are generally patterned on the Model Double Taxation Convention prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
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 (31,110 words introduced, 31,084 passed).
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on lengthy defined terms, fixed percentages, and a seven-year limit to create clear tax rules for three treaties. Broad regulatory power and a few contextual qualifiers still leave room for interpretation.
Open to argument
“The Minister of National Revenue may make any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the Convention or for giving effect to any of its provisions.”
Grants open-ended power without objective criteria or limits.“unless the context otherwise requires”
Subjective override that can alter defined terms.“an appropriate adjustment”
Vague standard inviting disagreement over what is suitable.
Clear-cut
“after seven years from the end of the year in which the income that would be subject to such change would, but for the conditions referred to in paragraph 1, have been attributed to that enterprise.”
Hard deadline removes discretion on timing.“the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest.”
Numerical cap creates black-and-white ceiling.“the tax so charged shall not exceed 15 per cent of the gross amount of the income if the beneficial owner is a resident of Colombia”
Specific rate tied to residency status.
Discretion. The Minister of National Revenue receives wide latitude to issue any regulations needed to implement or give effect to each convention.
Challenging the law itself. Technical tax definitions and treaty rules engage no obvious Charter rights and are unlikely to be struck for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Clear numerical limits and defined terms make most breaches straightforward to prove, yet phrases such as 'effectively connected' or 'ordinary course of their business' allow factual disputes.
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.