Does Bill C-23 really mean that even with a valid PR card, it may not guarantee entry by air from the U.S.?

[Ponga]

Digging up an old post, since this is now law:

Bill C-23 "An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States"

For full text (in English) of Bill C-23, "An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States," see
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8380353&Col=1

Note, the First Reading of this Bill was in June, last year and it has NOT progressed through the legislative process at all since then.

The CBC article refers to the likelihood that this Bill will be adopted into law. It is actually a long, long way from that happening.

In the meantime, the world has changed, and in particular potentially huge changes in Canada's relationship to that Big, Big Brother to the South are looming large, a gold-gilded-goon posing YUGE and already dramatically altering the landscape of international relations.

[Must admit that the last part of the last sentence above, got quite a chuckle outta me! Love the alliteration! LOL!]


Since the Bill received Royal Ascent (Dec 12, 2017)...this has already been in place for ~5 years?

The Google, found this:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-23/royal-assent

Part 2 Refusal to permit entrance
Preclearance by Canada in the United States

Application of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

48 (1) For greater certainty, a traveller in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter who is seeking to enter Canada is, for the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, outside Canada.


Preparation of report — inadmissibility

(4) A border services officer may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, and transmit it to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, if the officer is of the opinion that a foreign national or permanent resident in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter is inadmissible on any ground of inadmissibility that is set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that is prescribed by regulations made under subsection (7).

(5) If the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, he or she may refuse to permit the foreign national — or, despite subsections 19(2) and 27(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the permanent resident — from entering Canada through the preclearance area or preclearance perimeter.

Wow!
Is this the language that had been discussed back in 2017 (here), giving a CBSA officer the authority to [ultimately] deny entry of a PR with a valid PR card (by air), by denying boarding, if the officer's suspicion of not meeting the Residency Obligation is justified ? If so, and the PR could still enter Canada at a land PoE...what would be the point?

At the very least, this could give at least a bit of pause to a PR that knows they are not in compliance...even with a valid PR card, flying from the U.S.

 

[armoured]

Preclearance by Canada in the United States
...
Is this the language that had been discussed back in 2017 (here), giving a CBSA officer the authority to [ultimately] deny entry of a PR with a valid PR card (by air), by denying boarding, if the officer's suspicion of not meeting the Residency Obligation is justified ? If so, and the PR could still enter Canada at a land PoE...what would be the point?

Speaking of missing the point: this is all hypothetical so long as Canada has no preclearance facilities in the United States.

Which it does not.

Which perhaps is why there has been little attention paid so far.

 

[Ponga]

Speaking of missing the point: this is all hypothetical so long as Canada has no preclearance facilities in the United States.

Which it does not.

Which perhaps is why there has been little attention paid so far.

Did you know that it also means that a Canadian citizen flying to the U.S. could be `examined' by a CBP officer, leading to lovely things like a strip search?

https://aspercentre.ca/bill-c-23-le...s-vulnerable-to-charter-rights-infringements/


The bill establishes many new preclearance areas in Canada to be staffed by U.S. officers in order to clear travelers through customs prior to crossing the border. Canadian officials will conversely work in preclearance zones in the U.S. This bill is designed to expand border preclearance, expediting travel and the movement of goods between our two countries. Concerns have arisen with respect to the amount of power granted to U.S. officials on Canadian soil and how their actions will be held accountable under Canadian law. Although many recommendations to rectify the potentially unconstitutional aspects of the Act were made to the Standing Committee, they were insufficiently adopted in the Committee’s amendments. Consequently, if enacted in its current form it was, the bill will expose border crossers to many potential violations of their Charter rights.

Granting U.S. officers the power to conduct strip searches was also a point of contention. S. 22 of the bill affords this power to U.S. officers if Canadian officials are either unwilling or unavailable to conduct the search. Both the BCCLA and the CBA noted that strip searches are prima facie violations of the Charter, and submitted that this power should not be granted to U.S. officers. The CBA recommended that only Canadian officers be allowed to execute strip searches.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_preclearance

The preclearance agreement is fully reciprocal, meaning Canada is allowed to operate preclearance facilities in the United States on the same basis as U.S. facilities in Canada, including CBSA agents’ expanded powers under the LRMA. On average, however, U.S. airports offer far fewer daily flights to Canada compared to the reverse, making this an expensive and inefficient proposition that, as of 2021, has not been exercised by the Canadian government.

So...has it since been implemented?

 

[armoured]

Did you know that it also means that a Canadian citizen flying to the U.S. could be `examined' by a CBP officer, leading to lovely things like a strip search?

Yes. Not new. But your post above was about Canada doing this in USA.

The preclearance agreement is fully reciprocal, meaning Canada is allowed to operate preclearance facilities in the United States on the same basis as U.S. facilities in Canada, including CBSA agents’ expanded powers under the LRMA. ...

So...has it since been implemented?

Yes, in the sense that the law has passed; no, in the sense that Canada has opened no such facilities; yes, in the sense that it could.

 

[dpenabill]

Did anyone mention that reading information with an American journalist slant tending toward polemics is prone to skewer things?

Frankly, there are too many provisions of Canadian law pursuant to which the mobility rights of Canadians (both PRs and citizens), under the Charter, can be totally restricted, way too many to try keeping track of what they are let alone the variables and vagaries in how they are actually applied in practice. And in any event, there are a whole lot of other reasons for not engaging in activities that might take things in that direction.

What was the question?

Whatever, the better answer is a cold beer, charred beef (with apologies to my vegan acquaintances), a warm outdoor fire, an especially bright Jupiter in the early evening sky, and friends bending guitar strings but, if they are my friends (no disrespect intended, just being honest), going soft and easy on singing.

 

[Ponga]

Did anyone mention that reading information with an American journalist slant tending toward polemics is prone to skewer things?

Frankly, there are too many provisions of Canadian law pursuant to which the mobility rights of Canadians (both PRs and citizens), under the Charter, can be totally restricted, way too many to try keeping track of what they are let alone the variables and vagaries in how they are actually applied in practice. And in any event, there are a whole lot of other reasons for not engaging in activities that might take things in that direction.

What was the question?

Whatever, the better answer is a cold beer, charred beef (with apologies to my vegan acquaintances), a warm outdoor fire, an especially bright Jupiter in the early evening sky, and friends bending guitar strings but, if they are my friends (no disrespect intended, just being honest), going soft and easy on singing.

Welcome to the party!

I was hoping that you would chime in, since it was an old post of yours that took me down this new rabbit hole.