Bill S-2 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Customs Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 28, 2009
- Debated in principleMarch 2, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 22, 2009
- Passed the second chamberMay 28, 2009
- Became lawJune 11, 2009
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Dave MacKenzieadds voice of support for the legislation
- Hon. Joseph Volpeoffers measured opinion in support of the bill's role in managing national interests
- Shawn MurphyExplicitly states support for the bill and calls its provisions good and positive.
- Don Daviesexplicitly supports the bill as fundamentally sound despite minor concerns
- Mario Laframboisestates the Bloc will be supporting Bill S-2
- Tommy BanksSenate · SenatorThe bill does good things and will be better with the amendment.
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
On 29 January 2009, the Leader of Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs, in the Senate and it was given first reading. This bill amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions of the French version of the Act and to make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, grants the Minister the power to authorize entry, amends provisions concerning the determination of value for duty, and modifies advance commercial reporting requirements. The search powers of customs officers are expanded to include individuals and their goods that are in or are leaving a customs controlled area. The bill also provides that regulations may be enacted that describe the time frame and manner in which information about passengers may be provided by prescribed persons. Finally, it provides that regulations may incorporate material found in associated documents.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- removes provisionsTommy BanksDeletes the provision exempting incorporated material from the Statutory Instruments Act and renumbers the clause.Adopted · March 31, 2009 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
75% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,061 words introduced, 2,155 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with the same core amendments to the Customs Act as introduced, including new rules for customs controlled areas and valuation provisions. Only formatting, numbering artifacts, and the addition of assent and chapter details distinguish the final law from the introduced text.
- Added royal assent date and chapter number to the title page.
After: “Second Session, Fortieth Parliament, 57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009 STATUTES OF CANADA 2009 CHAPTER 10 An Act to amend the Customs Act ASSENTED TO 11th JUNE, 2009”
- Cleaned up garbled section numbering and line breaks in the body text.
Before: “262(1) 5 (4) Le ministre peut autoriser un agent ou une catégorie d'agents à exercer les pouvoirs et fonctions, y compris les pouvoirs et fonctions judiciaires ou quasi judiciaires, qui lui sont conférés en vertu de la présente loi.”
After: “262(1) (4) Le ministre peut autoriser un agent ou une catégorie d'agents à exercer les pouvoirs et fonctions, y compris les pouvoirs et fonctions judiciaires ou quasi judiciaires, qui lui sont conférés en vertu de la présente loi.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes objective triggers like 'suspects on reasonable grounds' with broad phrases such as 'might be contravened' and heavy reliance on 'prescribed' rules. Much of the operational detail and scope is left to regulations or ministerial discretion rather than fixed statutory limits.
Open to argument
“if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that this Act or any other Act of Parliament administered or enforced by the officer or any regulations made under it have been or might be contravened in respect of the goods”
The 'might be contravened' standard is open-ended and invites argument over future or hypothetical breaches.“An officer may, in accordance with the regulations and without individualized suspicion, conduct a non-intrusive examination of goods”
Absence of individualized suspicion plus regulation-dependent limits creates wide discretion.“prescribing the persons or classes of persons who may be granted access under paragraph 11.3(1)(b)”
Core scope of who is covered is undefined in the statute and left entirely to future rules.
Clear-cut
“An officer may search any person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area, other than a prescribed person or a member of a prescribed class of persons who may be searched under subsection (2)”
Explicit carve-out for prescribed classes narrows the immediate reach of the power.“Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to persons who are required to present themselves under section 11 or report goods under section 12”
Clear statutory non-application clause avoids overlap disputes.
Discretion. Extensive authority is delegated to the Governor in Council for regulations on advance information, search procedures, prescribed classes, and incorporation by reference, while the Minister may authorize, amend, suspend or cancel access and require passenger data under prescribed conditions.
Challenging the law itself. Section 8 Charter claims are plausible because 'might be contravened' and suspicionless examinations could be attacked as overbroad or vague, though 'reasonable grounds' language provides some objective anchor.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether 'reasonable grounds' existed or whether goods were truly 'in a customs controlled area,' but the 'might be' wording and regulation-dependent definitions make factual arguments harder to win.
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.