An Act to amend the Customs Act

How it changed on the way

36% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,039 words introduced, 1,615 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The core powers to collect exit information, require export reports, examine goods, and share data for Old Age Security stayed intact. Parliament added a new 15-year retention limit on the collected information and made small wording fixes to the disclosure and offence sections.

• A new retention rule was inserted before the export provisions.

  After: “Retention of collected information 93.1 Subject to section 6 of the Privacy Act , information collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained by the Agency for a period of not more than 15 years beginning on the day on which the information is collected.”

• Disclosure clause was updated to name the Old Age Security Act directly.

  Before: “(i) an official of the Department of Employment and Social Development solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Employment Insurance Act or the , if the information relates to the movement of people into and out of Canada;”

  After: “(i) an official of the Department of Employment and Social Development solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Employment Insurance Act or the Old Age Security Act , if the information relates to the movement of people into and out of Canada;”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill sets out exact lists of personal data to collect and a fixed 15-year retention period, yet repeatedly delegates the core rules on when, from whom and how that data is gathered to regulations. Offence provisions and examination powers are tied to defined statutory triggers but still depend on those same open-ended regulatory choices.

Open to argument

• “in the prescribed circumstances, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner”

  This phrase appears four times and leaves the actual triggers and procedures entirely to future regulations rather than fixing them in the statute.

• “The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), including regulations (a) prescribing the sources”

  The power to choose sources, circumstances, timing and manner is stated in the broadest terms without statutory limits.

Clear-cut

• “the surname, first name and middle names, the date of birth, the citizenship or nationality and the sex of the person”

  The statute itself enumerates the exact fields of personal information that may be collected.

• “retained by the Agency for a period of not more than 15 years beginning on the day on which the information is collected”

  A clear numerical ceiling and starting point are written directly into the Act.

• “on giving 30 days’ notice in writing to the debtor at the debtor’s latest known address”

  The sale provision fixes both the notice period and the method of service in the statute.

Discretion. Virtually every operational detail—who must report, which conveyances are covered, the exact timing and format, and the circumstances triggering collection—is left to the Governor in Council or the Minister through regulations and notifications.

Challenging the law itself. Sections 92–93 could be challenged under section 8 of the Charter as overbroad because the statute itself supplies almost no limits on the scope of personal-information collection once the regulatory power is exercised.

Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of failing to provide information could argue that the regulatory preconditions were never validly met, since the statute repeatedly conditions obligations on prescriptions that may be incomplete or ambiguous.

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.