Bill C-32 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Canada--Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 20, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 2, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 30, 2001
- Passed the second chamberNov. 21, 2001
- Became lawDec. 18, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
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
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (15,218 words introduced, 11,543 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill received royal assent with only the addition of the assent date and a short final clause on provincial consultation. All core provisions on implementing the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement remained unchanged.
- Added the date of royal assent after the long title.
After: “[Assented to 18th December, 2001]”
- Completed the final clause on regulations with a requirement to consult provinces.
Before: “Applicability of regulations in respect”
After: “Applicability of regulations in respect of a province (3) The Minister shall consult with the government of a province before the making of a reg”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes tight definitions and mechanical rules for tariffs and territories with repeated reliance on the Governor in Council's opinions and open-ended regulatory powers. This leaves key questions of scope and timing open to argument rather than settled by the text alone.
Open to argument
“if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that, for the purpose of giving effect in a province to Article III.8 of the Agreement, regulations are necessary”
Subjective opinion test plus broad purpose clause makes coverage depend on executive judgment rather than fixed criteria.“pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of any expenditures incurred by or on behalf of the Commission”
Undefined term 'appropriate share' invites prolonged disputes over amounts and allocation.
Clear-cut
“If a reduction under subsection (3) or (5) results in a specific rate of customs duty that includes a fraction of one tenth of a cent, the rate shall be rounded down to the nearest one tenth of a cent.”
Numerical rounding rule supplies an objective, mechanical test.“''principal cause'' means, in respect of a serious injury or threat thereof, an important cause that is no less important than any other cause of the serious injury or threat.”
Explicit comparative standard narrows the causation test.
Discretion. Extensive power is delegated to the Governor in Council to form opinions, issue regulations, and choose 'any other measure' it considers necessary, with only limited statutory triggers or caps.
Challenging the law itself. The Act largely implements an international agreement through defined terms and does not directly impose vague criminal or regulatory prohibitions that would readily engage Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a regulation made under the opinion-based clauses could argue the precondition was unmet, but success would require overcoming the broad wording and lack of objective benchmarks.
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.