Bill S-17 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013
An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 5, 2013
- Debated in principleApril 16, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 6, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 18, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
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
- Kevin Lamoureuxstates the bill receives substantial support across parties as straightforward
- Alain Giguèrestates the NDP is in favour because the bill is purely technical and implements treaties
- Ed Komarnickidescribes bill as technical update to extensive treaty network and urges passage.
- John Carmichaelbacks the bill as another step toward lower taxes and meeting tax obligations
- Joe Danielhighlights reduced bureaucracy, trade opportunities and thanks Senate review of the bill.
- Murray RankinStates explicitly that the official opposition supports the bill while noting it as a small step on evasion.
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 6 March 2013, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes (Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-17 implements four recent tax treaties that Canada has concluded with Namibia, Serbia, Poland and Hong Kong. This enactment also implements amendments to provisions for the exchange of tax information found in the tax treaties that Canada has concluded with Luxembourg and Switzerland. The tax treaties with Namibia, Serbia, Poland and Hong Kong are generally patterned on the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The amendments to the treaties with Luxembourg …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2013-06-10 · Passed
How it changed on the way
2% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (42,477 words introduced, 42,427 passed).
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on many defined terms and numerical limits that create clear rules for most tax situations. Broad regulation-making powers and a few interpretive phrases still leave room for argument over application.
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.”
This grants open-ended power without objective limits on what counts as necessary.“unless the context otherwise requires”
This subjective qualifier allows officials to depart from defined meanings without a fixed test.“make an appropriate adjustment”
The word appropriate invites disagreement over what adjustment is required.
Clear-cut
“the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest.”
A fixed percentage creates an objective ceiling that can be applied without further judgment.“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.”
A clear time limit removes discretion once the period expires.“the term "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.”
The definition uses concrete physical and operational criteria rather than standards of harm or opinion.
Discretion. Ministers receive repeated authority to issue any regulations needed to implement each convention, with no statutory criteria restricting their content or timing.
Challenging the law itself. The text contains no obvious vagueness or overbreadth that would readily engage section 7 or section 1 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Defined terms and numeric caps make most breaches straightforward to prove, but phrases such as 'appropriate adjustment' and 'due regard' allow factual disputes over whether the standard was met.
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.