Humanitarian, Refugees and Foreign Affairs

The Guardian: With his immigration bill, Canada’s prime minister is bowing to Trump

Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, is bucking all of that lore after pressure from the US in the form of Donald Trump’s “concerns” about undocumented migrants and fentanyl moving across the US-Canada border. In response, the recently elected Liberal PM put forward a 127-page bill that includes, among other worrying provisions, sweeping changes to immigration policy that would make the process much more precarious for refugees and could pave the way for mass deportations.

If passed, Carney’s Strong Borders Act (or Bill C-2) would bar anyone who has been in the country for more than a year from receiving refugee hearings. That would apply retroactively to anyone who entered the country after June 2020. If they arrived on foot between official ports of entry, meanwhile, they’d have to apply for asylum within 14 days of entering Canada – a disastrous outcome for people fleeing Trump’s persecution. The bill also gives the immigration minister’s office the authority to cancel immigration documents en masse.

This bill has been widely condemned by politicians and advocacy groups such as Amnesty International and the Migrants Rights Network, who are rightly worried about just how much havoc a change like this could wreak. Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, a member of Parliament for Vancouver East, told reporters the bill would breach civil liberties and basic rights.

McGill Daily: The Continental Mosaic Immigration Sparks Unrest and Policy Shifts Across North America

However, the Strong Borders Act has faced immediate backlash. Critics, including MP Jenny Kwan, the Migrant Rights Network, and refugee advocates, say the bill mimics Trump-era US tactics and risks violating Canada’s international obligations to protect refugees.

“It’s an alarming shift,” Kwan said, describing the bill as a “massive rollback of rights” that can erode Canada’s long-standing humanitarian commitments.

The US factor looms large. President Trump has repeatedly accused Canada of failing to stop the movement of illicit fentanyl and irregular migration across the northern frontier. In February, Trump threatened and implemented short-lived tariffs on certain Canadian exports, rattling Ottawa and adding impetus for Carney’s government to show it can police its own borders more strictly.

“There are items in the bill that have been irritants for the US, so we’re addressing some of those issues,” Anandasangaree acknowledged, even as he insisted the bill is about Canadian security first.

The Strong Borders Act has already sparked protests and is mounting legal challenges in Ottawa and in major cities like Montreal and Toronto. Critics argue that Canada, long seen as a beacon of openness, is at risk of abandoning that tradition in the name of security. For Carney’s government, the challenge remains how to reassure a skeptical public that the system is both secure and fair without sacrificing the country’s humanitarian identity.

 

CTV News: Advocacy groups warn federal bill could give law enforcement sweeping powers to access information

NDP MP and public safety and national security critic Jenny Kwan has also voiced opposition to the bill, calling it a “sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties.”

“It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight,” Kwan said in the House of Commons earlier this month. “This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple.”

Bill C-2 is formally titled “An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.”

It was at second reading in the House of Commons before MPs broke for the summer break last week. Any other progress on the bill will have to wait until the House resumes in mid-September.

Hill Times: Government’s border security bill draws heavy criticism from civil rights groups

Since Bill C-2’s introduction, vocal critics of the legislation in the House have included NDP MP Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.), her party’s critic for public safety, immigration, and citizenship. On June 11, Kwan told the House that the “so-called stronger borders act makes Harper’s Bill C-51 look like child’s play.”

“Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court,” she said in the House.

In response to Kwan, Anandasangaree defended the bill, saying the Strong Borders Act would help keep Canadians safe.

 

HANSARD: Introduce Private Member's Bill to to establish Ombud Office for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration

HANSARD: Petition to demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs in Gaza

Michael Geist: “Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet, exceeding even the 2010 bill led by Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The initial concern regarding the bill’s warrantless disclosure demand unsurprisingly focused on whether the proposal was consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding the reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information (there is a strong argument it is not). The application of this new power was generally framed as a matter for telecom and Internet companies, given that companies such as Bell, Rogers, and Telus are typically the focal point for law enforcement seeking information on subscriber activity. However, it has become increasingly apparent that this is an overly restrictive reading of the provision. The Bill C-2 information demand power doesn’t just target telecom providers. It targets everyone who provides services with the prospect of near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands.

Globe & Mail: Border bill powers would allow warrantless police requests to doctors, abortion clinics, hotels

The bill would give CSIS and the police, or a “public officer,” the power to demand the basic information without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime could be committed, or that any breach of a law passed by Parliament may take place. A draft form for making the information demand says to help with the investigation of an offence, the information must be provided “as soon as possible.”

The bill would gag the provider from saying they had received such a demand.

“With these powers, any official tasked with enforcing a federal law could go to the company you rented a car from or the hotel you stayed at and paint a detailed picture of your activities simply by confirming the various companies you interacted with,” said Tamir Israel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s privacy, surveillance and technologies program.

“Even health providers could face secret demands and would need to hire a lawyer and challenge these in court within five days of receiving them if they wished to avoid revealing that you are their client.”

Net News Ledger: Critics Warn Bill C-2 Could Open Door to Warrantless Surveillance of Canadians

NDP MP Jenny Kwan, the party’s public safety and immigration critic, called the bill a step toward a surveillance state. “This could allow police to approach any doctor or service provider to find out what other services someone is using—without a warrant,” she said. “Even landlords could be compelled to disclose private information.”

Kwan also criticized the government’s lack of transparency, noting that no Charter analysis has been published for Bill C-2—despite being standard practice since the last election. “Canadians who voted for Mark Carney never signed up for this,” she added.

Guardian Opinion: Canadians said no to Trump – so why is Mark Carney pushing a Maga-inspired border bill?

The Carney Liberal government introduced Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, as their first piece of legislation in the House of Commons after the federal election.  This Bill is supposed to appease Trump with his delusional claims on fentanyl trafficking against Canada.  Instead of elbows up, speaking truth to power, he is bending a knee to Trump.  

Worst still, this legislation intends to align Canada with the US's refugee policies - it is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill that goes against Canadian values and historically progressive policies.  Due process and administrative fairness are tossed out the window.  Oversight and accountability - non-existent.  

This Act will result in a mass deportation by administrative means, rather than law enforcement. It prevents persecuted individuals from applying for asylum in Canada.  It will result in the same outcome, putting thousands of people into precarious and vulnerable situations. It also upends privacy laws and creates a backdoor to accessing the private data of individuals. This legislation is a direct attack on civil liberties. The NDP will work with civil society, refugee and immigration organizations to actively oppose this draconian legislation. This is an excellent summary from the Guardian on Bill C-2: