OTTAWA—As anti-Trump rhetoric ramped up in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended a government bill to expand the power of American border guards to question and detain U.S.-bound travellers at Canadian airports and other crossings.

Trudeau said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will still protect travellers on Canadian soil even if they are detained for more questioning or a search by American authorities in a preclearance zone.

“If we didn’t have preclearance in Canada, people would be passing customs in the United States, and in the United States American laws dominate and control the behaviour of people in border crossings,” Trudeau told reporters.

“There is extra protection when Canadians go through American customs in Canada because they are protected by the charter on Canadian soil.”

But the NDP says the bill is an unwarranted expansion of power at a time when the new U.S. administration under President Donald Trump is ordering tougher security measures at the border and “racially profiling” those trying to enter the country.

NDP public safety critic Mathew Dubé served notice of an amendment to kill the bill completely — even before it is studied by a committee — because it “neglects to take into account the climate of uncertainty at the border following the discriminatory policies and executive orders of the Trump Administration.”

Dubé cited a Vancouver man who said he was turned away from a B.C. border crossing after a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer searched his cellphone and reportedly suspected him of being a sex worker.

Dubé said the man was “turned away because of his sexual orientation and dating apps that he had on his phone. And given that reality, for us, we have serious concerns about these new extra powers that are being given to American agents.”

“Preclearance already happens without these new powers,” said Dubé, “and the government’s been unable to say why they need to give American agents on Canadian soil more powers, especially in light of the way Canadians are being treated at the border. This just opens the door for even more abusive treatment.”

But Trudeau argued in the Commons that expanded preclearance “is a good system that allows for smoother movement of goods and services, easier access to the United States, and protection.”

The proposed legislation, known as Bill C-23, was introduced last June as part of a package to implement a cross-border deal first struck by Stephen Harper with Barack Obama. That deal was later taken up by Trudeau and Obama, with the promise to expand preclearance sites from the current eight airports in Canada to four more locations, including Toronto’s Billy Bishop Airport.

The bill would provide for preclearance to eventually occur at land, air, rail and marine crossings. Officials say the U.S. has conducted air preclearance at a handful of locations for more than 50 years.

There are no preclearance sites on the U.S. side for Canada-bound travellers but the bill would provide lawful authority for them.

As written now, the bill would give U.S. border officers the right to carry firearms on Canadian soil like CBSA guards have; a limited right to detain and question a traveller who decides to turn back from the U.S., and the right to conduct a visual strip-search of a suspicious traveller but only if a Canadian border officer is unavailable to do so.

If a Canadian traveller decides to turn around and “withdraw from the pre-clearance process,” an American border guard would have the right to further demand proof of identity, and to question the person about their reason for withdrawal, but officials said that should take only a “reasonable” amount of time, not be a lengthy process, and the individual would not be legally “detained” at that point.

However, if U.S. authorities have reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed an offence, the traveller could be detained and would have a right to demand a senior Canadian officer and/or a lawyer be present.

American officers may detain and flag to Canadian police or border officers anyone suspected of violating Canadian law. The bill does not make U.S. border guards peace officers on Canadian soil and so they have no power of arrest, Canadian officials said Wednesday.

The bill limits the criminal liability of American officers acting in the course of their inspection duties for all but the most serious crimes — murder, aggravated sexual assault and terrorism — and leaves most other prosecutorial decisions with the U.S.

The bill is Canada’s reciprocal version of the same powers already granted to Canadian border guards by U.S. legislation that was hastily passed through Congress in December in the dying days of the Obama administration.

At a technical briefing, senior Public Safety and CBSA officials sought to downplay concerns, saying it doesn’t confer greatly expanded powers.

Jill Wherrett, a public safety official, said American officers conducting air pre-clearance “already have the authority to conduct pat down searches, to search goods, to detain a traveller and to collect information from travellers, and they’ve been exercising those authorities in the air mode for over 50 years.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

She said on an annual basis about 12 million passengers now pass through airport pre-clearances on Canadian soil, and there are only about five to 15 strip searches per airport per year.

Still, it is not enough for Dubé, whose amendment specifically says the bill “does not address Canadians’ concerns about being interrogated, detained and turned back at the border based on race, religion, travel history or birthplace as a result of policies that may contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; does nothing to ensure that Canadians’ right to privacy will be protected during searches of electronic devices; and violates Canadian sovereignty by increasing the powers of American preclearance officers on Canadian soil with respect to the carrying of firearms and by not properly defining a criminal liability framework.”

Department officials could not say whether the government would be open to any amendment of the legislation, given it seeks to implement an international agreement reached by the executive branch.

Read more about: