An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

How it changed on the way

29% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,077 words introduced, 2,392 passed).

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill removed the original preamble and replaced several sections on definitions, water exclusions, panel costs, and regulations with streamlined versions reflecting the 2018 protocol. It added a schedule reference for Israel in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act and updated session years plus assent date.

• The preamble was repealed.

  Before: “Preamble WHEREAS the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel have entered into a Free Trade Agreement desiring to strengthen their economic relations and to promote economic development, wishing to create a framework for promoting investment and cooperation, resolved to foster the development of their trade with due regard to fair conditions of competition, recalling the mutual interest of the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel in reinforcement of the multilateral trading system as reflected in the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, recalling that the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on September 27, 1976 that established a Joint Economic Commission, which was continued under a Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Cooperation entered into on August 5, 1993, and wishing to establish a free trade area between the two countries through the removal of trade barriers,”

• Old sections 12 to 15 on panels and regulations were replaced.

  Before: “12 The Minister for International Trade shall designate an agency, division or branch of the Government of Canada to facilitate the operation of, and provide administrative assistance to panels established under, Chapter Eight of the Agreement.”

• New schedule reference added for CIFTA beneficiary.

  After: “8 The schedule to the Act is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a reference to "Israel or another CIFTA beneficiary" in column 1 and a corresponding reference to "Canada–Israel Agreement Tariff in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Customs Tariff " in column 2.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses exact dates, defined terms, and cross-references to specific Agreement articles for appointments and panels, creating clear boundaries in those areas. However, phrases granting the Governor in Council power to take any measure it considers necessary and to pay an appropriate share of costs introduce subjective discretion that blurs what is required.

Open to argument

• “its appropriate share of the costs of”

  The word 'appropriate' supplies no objective test or formula for determining Canada's portion.

• “take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.”

  The phrase rests on the subjective opinion of the Governor in Council rather than an enumerated list of actions.

Clear-cut

• “Agreement means the Free Trade Agreement entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel and signed on July 31, 1996, as amended by the Canada – Israel Free Trade Amending Protocol 2018 signed on May 28, 2018.”

  The definition fixes the exact document by date and title, eliminating ambiguity about which text applies.

• “appoint a panellist in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 19.7 of the Agreement;”

  The power is confined to a numbered paragraph of a named article, supplying an objective external standard.

Discretion. Ministers may appoint representatives and panellists by reference to specific Agreement articles, while the Governor in Council holds open-ended order-making power under Article 19.13 and a residual power to take any measure it considers necessary, with coming-into-force also left to order in council.

Challenging the law itself. The provisions implement an international trade agreement through defined institutional mechanisms and do not directly engage Charter rights in a manner that would readily support a vagueness or overbreadth claim.

Disputing a charge under it. A person affected by an order could argue that the order exceeds the stated purpose of suspending benefits under Article 19.13, but the broad residual clause makes such disputes fact-specific and harder to win on the text alone.

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.