Bill C-23 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Preclearance Act, 2016
An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 17, 2016
- Debated in principleMarch 6, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 21, 2017
- Passed the second chamberDec. 6, 2017
- Became lawDec. 11, 2017
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 pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 17 June 2016, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States (Preclearance Act, 2016)), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-23 implements the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (the Agreement), done at Washington on March 16, 2015, to provide for the preclearance in each country of travellers and goods bound for the other country. Part 1 of the enactment authorizes United States preclearance officers to conduct preclearance in Canada of travellers and goods bound for the United States and, among other things, it • authorizes a federal Minister to designate preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in Canada, in which precleara…
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
9% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (10,516 words introduced, 10,775 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core preclearance framework stayed intact but Parliament added an independent review mechanism and officer training on Canadian law. It also expanded definitions, inserted a traveller complaint route, and made minor numbering and reference fixes.
- Added mandatory training for US preclearance officers on Canadian law.
After: “Training — preclearance officer (2) The Minister must, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the Agreement, provide every preclearance officer with training on the Canadian law that applies to the exercise of the preclearance officer's powers and the performance of their duties and functions under this Act.”
- Created new Part 3.1 for independent review of the Act’s administration.
After: “PART 3.1 Independent Review 62.1 Review and report”
- Added section allowing travellers to report strip searches and similar incidents to Canadian officials.
After: “Situation referred to in certain provisions 26.1 Regardless of any applicable recourse, a traveller may, in a prescribed manner, inform the Canadian senior officials of the Preclearance Consultative Group established under the Agreement of any situation referred to in sections 22, 23 and 24, subsection 31(2) and section 32 of this Act.”
- Broadened the definition of border services officer to include CBSA employees enforcing customs laws.
Before: “( renseignements biométriques ) border services officer means a person who is designated under subsection 9(2) of the Canada Border Serv- or designated or authorized under section 6 of the ices Agency Act Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .”
After: “( renseignements biométriques ) border services officer means a person who is (a) employed by the Canada Border Services Agency in the administration or enforcement of the Customs Act , the Customs Tariff or the Special ; Import Meas- ures Act (b) designated under subsection 9(2) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act ; or (c) designated or authorized under section 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies many defined terms and numbered procedural steps but repeatedly conditions officer powers on 'reasonable grounds to suspect' or 'believe' standards. These objective-sounding tests still leave room for argument over what facts meet the threshold in any given case.
Open to argument
“e officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has on their person anything that would present a danger to human life or safety.”
The phrase 'reasonable grounds to suspect' is an objective test yet requires case-by-case judgment about what facts suffice.“If a preclearance officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament”
The belief threshold governs detention and seizure but invites prolonged disputes over the sufficiency of the officer's information.“if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the traveller has on their person concealed goods”
This standard appears in multiple search and monitoring provisions and turns on subjective assessment of concealment.
Clear-cut
“liable to a maximum fine of $5,000”
The offence provision states a clear numerical maximum penalty.“frisk search means a search by hand or technical means of a person's clothed body”
The definition supplies an exact, observable description of the technique.“a term of imprisonment is not to be imposed for default of payment of a fine imposed under subsection (1)”
The rule eliminates imprisonment for non-payment in explicit language.
Discretion. Ministers may designate areas and perimeters by order, prescribe goods for transfer, and make regulations under section 43, while officers exercise day-to-day powers once 'reasonable grounds' are found.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 8 and 9 Charter claims could be brought against the breadth of frisk, strip-search and detention powers triggered by suspicion standards, though the presence of defined limits and oversight provisions makes success uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could contest whether the officer actually held reasonable grounds by examining the facts known at the time, but the legal standard itself is well-established and narrows the range of successful arguments.
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.