Public Safety committee  If you look at clause 17, we have paragraphs 17(d) and (e). The first states: (d) persons who are authorized by the Minister under section 45 or by regulation That would include the marine transportation security regulations, which will be amended to address this. Paragrap

Public Safety committee  Yes, it would be the operator of the facility, whatever operator that happened to be in the case in question.

Public Safety committee  Yes, certainly. In fact, this amendment is inconsistent with the agreement. It's inconsistent with article VI, paragraphs 10(f) and 20(g). They specify that in the pre-clearance area and perimeter, pre-clearance officers respectively shall be authorized to detain not just trave

Public Safety committee  I think I'll turn to Martin, who can speak to the actual details of when those kinds of searches are required in the CBSA context, which would be similar to the CBP context. To be clear, in the legislation, those searches cannot be undertaken by an officer. They have to be unde

Public Safety committee  As well, yes.

Public Safety committee  Martin, you may want to speak to that as well, but that's part of the work that lies before us in terms of establishing where pre-clearance might make sense in the U.S. Again, it's economically driven. The U.S. has a process where they put out a call for pre-clearance applicati

Public Safety committee  I can't speak to the specifics of the new bridge. I don't know, Tom, if you can speak to that.

Public Safety committee  With pre-clearance generally...?

Public Safety committee  They're very enthusiastic about pre-clearance. As I mentioned, they have a global pre-clearance strategy. They are rolling out pre-clearance. They have it in a number of other countries now. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it's in seven or eight other countries.

Public Safety committee  They are very keen on pre-clearance, and they see it as very important for their security to push at the border.

Public Safety committee  I don't really have a sense of that at this point because we're still in fairly early days. We've certainly had some interest expressed to us, but I don't have a sense that it's stronger on either side.

Public Safety committee  We've looked generally at the economic benefits of pre-clearance writ large. I don't know that we've drilled down into the specifics of cargo pre-clearance at certain sites, but we need to make a business case for cargo pre-clearance in different facilities and different location

Public Safety committee  Sure. There are a couple of reasons. As I said, part of the reason we did the pilot projects was to test the concept to see how it worked. We learned a lot of value from the specific project we did in Ontario, but also that some of the benefits in efficiencies can also be achie

Public Safety committee  It would require passage of Bill C-23 on the Canadian side, and our looking at the different opportunities for cargo pre-clearance.

Public Safety committee  Yes. The Canadian legislation gives us the legislative basis that we need to do cargo pre-clearance. On the U.S. side, they've continued to say that they may need some other provisions, whether they're legislative or other kinds of agreements. Just as we have with all of the indi