Bill C-18 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 9, 2020
- Debated in principleFeb. 1, 2021
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 10, 2021
- Passed the second chamberMarch 15, 2021
- Became lawMarch 16, 2021
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 9 December 2020, the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade introduced Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-18 implements the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 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 10 to 15 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 with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and gives…
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
10% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,508 words introduced, 7,479 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with only minor updates to dates and session references to reflect royal assent in March 2021. Substantive provisions on the trade agreement and related amendments remained unchanged.
- Updated the year and regnal reference in the bill header from introduction to passage.
Before: “C-18 2 43 69 Elizabeth II 2020”
After: “C-18 2 43 69-70 Elizabeth II 2020-2021”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on many defined terms and exact cross-references to CETA articles, which fixes most obligations in black-and-white language. However, it leaves key spending and order-making decisions to subjective ministerial or cabinet judgment.
Open to argument
“pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of”
Uses an undefined subjective standard instead of a fixed formula or percentage.“take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary”
Grants open-ended discretion without objective limits on what counts as necessary.
Clear-cut
“A reference in this Act to a provision of CETA is a reference to that provision as incorporated by reference in the Agreement.”
Pins the meaning to a specific external text rather than leaving interpretation open.“No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind are to be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada”
Creates a clear procedural bar with a single, identifiable gatekeeper.
Discretion. Ministers may propose tribunal members and the Governor in Council may suspend or modify federal laws by order for an unspecified period, with only the loose purpose of complying with Article 29.14 of CETA.
Challenging the law itself. The Act mainly implements an international trade agreement and contains explicit non-justiciability clauses, so Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims would face high procedural and substantive hurdles.
Disputing a charge under it. Most duties are defined by reference to the Agreement or specific CETA chapters, but the broad order-making power and 'appropriate share' language could generate disputes over scope.
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.