Bill S-23 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 21, 2001
- Debated in principleMay 2, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 6, 2001
- Passed the second chamberOct. 24, 2001
- Became lawOct. 24, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
73% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (45,860 words introduced, 32,834 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core goal of modernizing customs for faster movement of people and goods but added entirely new sections on customs controlled areas. Over 70 percent of the introduced text was removed or replaced, with fresh rules on designations, access controls, and reporting inserted before royal assent.
- New provisions created customs controlled areas at facilities like airports.
After: “11.2 (1) The Minister may designate an area as a customs controlled area for the purposes of this section and sections 11.3 to 11.5 and 99.2 and 99.3.”
- Added rules prohibiting access to controlled areas without authorization.
After: “11.3 No owner or operator of a facility where a customs controlled area is located shall grant or allow to be granted access to the customs controlled area to any person unless the person (a) has been authorized by the Minister in accordance with regulations made under section 11.5;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill is drafted with heavy dependence on undefined 'prescribed' rules, ministerial opinions, and open standards such as reasonable grounds or appropriate orders. This leaves core duties, liabilities, and procedures open to extended interpretation rather than fixed application.
Open to argument
“If, in the opinion of the Minister, a person has not kept records”
Subjective ministerial judgment replaces an objective test for record-keeping compliance.“reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling-house is a premises or place”
Vague belief standard governs entry powers without clear factual thresholds.“it would be just and equitable to grant the application”
Broad equitable discretion invites argument over fairness in extension requests.“make any other order that is appropriate in the circumstances”
Open-ended judicial power without limiting criteria expands scope unpredictably.
Clear-cut
“within ninety days after the time of service”
Fixed calendar deadline creates a clear cutoff for requesting a ministerial decision.“within four years after goods are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5)”
Specific time limit for refund applications removes ambiguity about filing windows.
Discretion. Extensive power is granted to the Minister to prescribe forms, conditions, waivers, and record requirements, and to officers to authorize movements or issue warrants on flexible standards.
Challenging the law itself. Administrative and customs provisions engage section 8 Charter interests but include warrant requirements and objective liability elements that make facial vagueness claims difficult to sustain.
Disputing a charge under it. Liability clauses often hinge on proving facts within prescribed times or under prescribed conditions, allowing factual disputes but requiring reference to external regulations.
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.