Bill C-30 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 31, 2016
- Debated in principleDec. 13, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 14, 2017
- Passed the second chamberMay 10, 2017
- Became lawMay 15, 2017
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime 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 pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 31 October 2016, Minister of International Trade introduced Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures (Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-30 implements the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016. The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. Part 1 approves the Agreement and provides for the paym…
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
23% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (37,428 words introduced, 37,472 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with technical wording fixes and date updates across consequential amendments to trade and patent laws. One substantive change replaced a full repeal of Patent Act section 62 with a new provision on judgments voiding patents.
- Replaced repeal of section 62 with new text on voiding patents.
Before: “49 40 Section 62 of the Act is repealed.”
After: “49 40 Section 62 of the Act is replaced by the following: Judgment voiding patent 62 A patent, or part of a patent, that is voided by a judgment shall be and be held to have been void and of no effect, unless the judgment is reversed on appeal as provided in section 63.”
- Corrected incomplete phrasing on WTO Member definition.
Before: “country includes a , as defined in subsection 2(1) of the WTO Member World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act ;”
After: “country includes a WTO Member , as defined in subsection 2(1) of the World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act ;”
- Fixed grammar in offence penalty clause.
Before: “Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine is of not more than $200”
After: “Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $200”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill mixes tightly defined terms and numeric penalties with repeated subjective phrases that hand power to ministers and the Governor in Council. This mix creates both clear rules and open-ended discretion that invites argument over scope.
Open to argument
“pay its appropriate share of the aggregate”
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 based on the executive's own opinion.“If the Board believes on reasonable grounds”
Trigger depends on an official's subjective belief rather than objective facts.“in the Minister’s opinion, is, by reason of state or commercial interest, sufficiently connected”
Key standing test rests on ministerial judgment without listed criteria.
Clear-cut
“liable to a fine of not more than $200 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both”
Exact numeric limits and offence classification leave little room for interpretation.“Agreement means the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016”
Specific date and full title fix the incorporated document without ambiguity.“Within two months after a statement of objection has been served”
Fixed calendar deadline removes discretion over timing.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council retain wide power to decide what is necessary, appropriate, or reasonable and to set forms, electronic means, security amounts, and regulations without statutory caps.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'considers necessary' and 'in the Minister’s opinion' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7 or s. 2(b), though many provisions are technical and economic.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused parties can readily argue over whether a belief was reasonable, an opinion was formed properly, or an allocation was appropriate, given the lack of objective tests.
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?
partly effective
The Act successfully enabled Canada's implementation of CETA, which entered provisional application in September 2017 and delivered measurable increases in bilateral trade and economic benefits. However, full ratification remains incomplete, preference utilization rates are low especially for SMEs, and some regulatory cooperation and sustainability provisions show limited progress.
- European Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2025) 364evaluationCETA has worked well overall, achieving its objectives with over 98% of tariff lines duty-free, positive GDP impacts (€3.2 bn annually for EU, €1.3 bn for Canada), and benefits for SMEs.
- European Parliament EPRS In-Depth Analysis PE 754.440studyCETA boosted EU goods exports to Canada by 27% and imports by 32%, and services by 19% and 15% respectively, though challenges persist with low preference utilization rates and SME participation.
- European Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2025) 363evaluationTariff liberalisation succeeded (98.6-98.7% of lines duty-free) and trade grew 71% post-CETA, but FDI impact was absent and some implementation issues like data gaps and digital trade remain.
- Kiel Institute for the World Economy AnalysisstudySubstantial trade gains confirmed six years post-provisional application, with recommendations to address implementation hurdles including preference utilization and critical raw materials cooperation.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.