Bill C-4 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 29, 2020
- Debated in principleFeb. 6, 2020
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 13, 2020
- Passed the second chamberMarch 13, 2020
- Became lawMarch 13, 2020
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 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 29 January 2020, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs introduced Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States (Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-4 enactment implements the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, done at Buenos Aires on 30 November 2018, as amended by the Protocol of Amendment to that Agreement, done at Mexico City on 10 December 2019. The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 20 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, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated wi…
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
51% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (48,681 words introduced, 27,632 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of implementing CUSMA remained intact, but Parliament added dozens of new clauses updating references from NAFTA to CUSMA and inserting fresh provisions in other statutes. Over half the bill's text was altered or replaced between introduction and royal assent.
- Copyright term for anonymous works was lengthened and the NAFTA reference was dropped.
Before: “Authors who are nationals of any country, other than a country that is a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement, that grants a term of protection shorter than that mentioned in subsection (1) are not entitled to claim a longer term of protection in Canada.”
- Copyright term for cinematographic works was extended from 50 to 70 years.
Before: “11.1 Except for cinematographic works in which the arrangement or acting form or the combination of incidents represented give the work a dramatic character, copyright in a cinematographic work or a compilation of cinematographic works shall subsist (a) for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the cinematographic work or of the compilation, and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year;”
After: “Cinematographic works 11.1 Except for cinematographic works in which the arrangement or acting form or the combination of incidents represented give the work a dramatic character, copyright in a cinematographic work or a compilation of cinematographic works shall subsist until the end of 70 years following the end of the calendar year in which the cinematographic work or the compilation is made.”
- New trade-secret offence and CUSMA-specific definitions were inserted into the Criminal Code.
After: “(lxx.01) section 391 (trade secret), 37 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 390:”
- Safeguard and origin rules were updated to cover CUSMA instead of earlier free-trade partners.
Before: “Goods imported from free trade partner (3) If an order has been made under subsection 5(3) or (3.2) that applies, by virtue of subsection 5(4), to goods imported from a free trade partner, or an order has been made under subsection 5(4.1), the Minister shall, in determining whether to issue a permit under this section, be guided, as the case may be, by (a) Article 10.2 of CUSMA”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many defined terms and specific numerical penalties but repeatedly grants broad power to the Governor in Council and ministers using subjective phrases. This mix leaves clear rules in some areas and open-ended discretion in others.
Open to argument
“pay its appropriate share of the aggregate”
Uses subjective standard without objective test or formula.“take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary”
Broad discretion tied to ministerial opinion rather than objective criteria.“suspend the application to that CUSMA country of such benefits under that Agreement as the Governor in Council considers appropriate in the circumstances”
Leaves choice of benefits and assessment of circumstances to executive judgment.
Clear-cut
“fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to both”
Sets clear maximum penalties with no subjective qualifiers.“trade secret means any information that (a) is not generally known in the trade or business that uses or may use that information”
Provides objective definition with specific criteria.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Governor in Council and designated ministers to make regulations or take measures they consider necessary or appropriate for implementing the Agreement.
Challenging the law itself. The Act mainly implements an international agreement through defined terms and specific offences, making successful Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. Offences require proof of knowledge and commercial purpose, allowing factual disputes, while regulatory provisions turn on executive discretion.
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.