Bill C-2 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 10, 2010
- Debated in principleApril 19, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 14, 2010
- Passed the second chamberJune 20, 2010
- Became lawJune 28, 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
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ed FastCalls the agreement critical for Canadian workers and for Colombia's peace and prosperity.
- Peter Van LoanMoves the bill at second and third reading as part of the government's trade agenda.
- Dean AllisonHe argues the agreement serves Canada's economic interests and should be implemented.
- Gerald KeddyPresents the agreement as a government priority that helps Canadian businesses compete abroad.
- Paul SzaboHe explicitly states he will support the bill at second reading.
- Brad TrostHe states the agreement is good for Canada and members should vote 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
On 10 March 2010, The Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway introduced Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia (Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-2 implements a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia that was signed in November 2008. Among other things, it: • eliminates tariffs, reduces of non-tariff barriers between the two countries • includes management provisions dealing with sanitary and phytosanitary issues; • provides trade and investment opportunities for, among others, the agricultural and agri-food sectors, natural resources and information and communications technology (ICT); • creates market access for Canadian service providers in areas such as financial, high-tech, mining and professional services; and • facilitates the movement of business persons between Canada and the countries of the Andean Community.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2010-04-16 · Passed
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (9,237 words introduced, 7,600 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core free-trade implementation provisions stayed in place, but Parliament added a new annual human-rights report requirement. Some sections were renumbered or trimmed, accounting for the reported 70 percent textual change.
- A new section 15.1 was inserted requiring an annual human-rights report to Parliament.
After: “Pursuant to the Agreement Concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade Between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament by May 15 of each year or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the 30 days next thereafter that it is sitting, a report on the operation of this Act during the previous calendar year, containing a general summary of all actions taken under the authority of this Act, and an analysis of the impact of these actions on human rights in Canada and the Republic of Colombia.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act mixes tight numerical rules and defined terms with open-ended grants of power and subjective standards. This leaves room for argument over what officials may do and when duties apply.
Open to argument
“The Government of Canada shall pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of any expenditures incurred by or on behalf of the Joint Commission.”
Uses undefined subjective term 'appropriate share' instead of a fixed formula or percentage.“take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary for that purpose.”
Broad discretion based on the Governor in Council's opinion rather than objective criteria.“if the Tribunal is satisfied that it contains or is accompanied by the information required by section 23.”
Relies on the Tribunal's subjective satisfaction rather than a checklist of required documents.
Clear-cut
“If a reduction under subsection (3) or (4) 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.”
Provides an exact mechanical rounding rule with no discretion.“"principal cause" means, in respect of a serious injury or threat of a serious injury, an important cause that is no less important than any other cause of the serious injury or threat.”
Supplies a clear, objective comparative test that can be applied without further policy judgment.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council retain wide power to appoint panelists, issue orders suspending benefits or modifying federal laws, make regulations they consider necessary, and decide what share of costs Canada pays.
Challenging the law itself. The Act mainly implements an international agreement and contains no obvious overbreadth or vagueness that would readily engage section 7 or 2(b) Charter claims.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing an order or tariff change could argue that the Governor in Council exceeded the 'necessary' or 'appropriate' language, but success would require showing the discretion was exercised outside statutory bounds.
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?
effective
Official Global Affairs Canada evaluations confirm the Canada-Colombia FTA achieved its core objectives of tariff elimination and trade growth, with bilateral merchandise trade expanding significantly post-2011 and preference utilization rates high. Annual statutory human rights reports required by the Implementation Act consistently find no direct negative impacts from FTA actions on human rights in either country.
- Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Economic Impact Assessment (Global Affairs Canada, 2022)evaluationBilateral merchandise trade grew nearly 30% since 2011, Canadian exports rose 39%, and econometric analysis attributes a moderate positive effect (5.8-7.6% faster trade growth) to the CCoFTA.
- Canada-Colombia: 15 years of free trade (Global Affairs Canada, 2026)evaluationMerchandise trade grew from $1.6B in 2010 to $4.1B in 2025, with high preference utilization generating $81.5M in duty savings in 2024 alone.
- Annual report pursuant to the Agreement Concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade (Global Affairs Canada, 2024)reviewNo actions under the CCoFTA Implementation Act, including tariff reductions, had a direct impact on human rights in Canada or Colombia.
- Annual report pursuant to the Agreement Concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade (Global Affairs Canada, 2018)reviewBilateral trade increased ~50% over 2010 levels, with Canadian exports growing faster in liberalized sectors, confirming the agreement's stimulatory impact on trade.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.