Bill C-41 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act
An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 23, 2014
- Debated in principleOct. 1, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 29, 2014
- Passed the second chamberNov. 24, 2014
- Became lawNov. 25, 2014
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
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 September 2014, the Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea (Canada–Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-41 implements the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea that was done at Ottawa on 22 September 2014. The general provisions of the bill set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Part 1 approves the Free Trade Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment. Par…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (17,625 words introduced, 16,680 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill received royal assent with formal updates to its header, including chapter number and assent date, while the core provisions remained intact. The final inquiry section was completed with added wording on injury findings and emergency measures.
- Replaced bill introduction header with statutes chapter and assent details.
Before: “C-41 Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-41 An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014 STATUTES OF CANADA 2014 CHAPTER 28 An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea ASSENTED TO 26th NOVEMBER, 2014”
- Completed the truncated final provision on tribunal inquiries.
Before: “as to alone constitute a principal cause of serious in”
After: “as to alone constitute a principal cause of serious injury, or threat of serious injury, to domestic producers of like or directly competitive goods, if the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, refers the question to it for inquiry and report. Emergency measures — Korea (3) The Tribunal shall conduct”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes tight numerical rules and defined terms for tariffs, timelines and geographical indications with open phrases that hand discretion to officials and the Governor in Council. Readers can predict many outcomes but will still face argument over what counts as an 'appropriate share' or when something 'appears to the satisfaction' of cabinet.
Open to argument
“The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of any expenditures incurred by or on behalf of the Commission.”
Uses an undefined subjective standard instead of a fixed formula or percentage.“take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.”
Broad residual power resting on the opinion of cabinet rather than objective criteria.“any person who is affected or reasonably apprehends that he or she may be affected”
Subjective apprehension test that invites litigation over likelihood and standing.
Clear-cut
“the period that is specified in the order, which shall not exceed two years”
Hard cap on duration with explicit subtraction rule for prior orders.“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.”
Mechanical arithmetic rule that eliminates interpretive disputes over rounding.
Discretion. Significant power remains with the Governor in Council to make orders extending safeguards, set 'appropriate' payments, and decide what measures are 'necessary', while the Tribunal decides whether complaints are 'properly documented' and whether injury is serious.
Challenging the law itself. The Act mainly implements an international trade treaty with limited direct impact on Charter rights, and its causes-of-action bar plus privative language would make a facial vagueness or overbreadth challenge difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. Prohibitions on geographical indications and tariff rules are fairly concrete, yet the 'reasonably apprehends' standing test and 'properly documented' complaint standard give accused parties room to dispute coverage and procedure.
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.