Yes, that is an accurate summary of what I've said in the past.
The GAAR is notoriously difficult to apply. There are circumstances in which it has been, in domestic or international transactions, and many circumstances in which it hasn't been. The academic commentary in Canada—particularly the writing of Brian Arnold, who has been involved in the GAAR since the beginning—generally says that the GAAR has not really done what it was intended to do.
As for the recent changes, effective 2024, including a penalty and a new economic substance test, it's too early to know whether they will change the way cases are decided. I think the general feeling, at least among Canadian law academics and tax law academics, is that it's a step in the right direction. Taxpayers will have to think a little more carefully. The calculus changes when there's a penalty—it's not just, “Oh, let's try it. If the court decides that the GAAR applies, well, we'll have to pay the tax, but we would have to pay the tax anyway.”
The only penalty right now is a bit of interest—I mean, the interest could be significant—but adding a penalty does change the calculation. One has to think hard about whether this transaction is consistent with the policy or undermines the policy.