We live in a time of rising global uncertainty. It is more important than ever that the Canadian immigration system can respond to arising global crises in an expedient and flexible manner. Alarmingly, this is not the case.

Even before major global refugee crises such as the Afghanistan, and Ukrainian crises, IRCC has been struggling with massive backlogs in all the immigration streams. Delayed immigration application is the most common request for assistance at my office, with some applications delayed for years! Behind the delayed applications are separated families, missed opportunities, and in some cases, immigration is a life-and-death situation for people who need to leave dangerous situations.

To start, IRCC should stop the practice of returning applications when there are minor mistakes and missing information and documents that can be easily provided by applicants. IRCC must also end oppressive immigration policies such as the inhumane cap on parent/grandparents’ sponsorship applications, closed work permits for migrant workers, and the unfair treatment of caregivers and domestic workers.

Lack of resources for IRCC is the major root cause of delayed applications. I will continue to advocate for adequate resources for IRCC to process applications in consistently reasonable timeframes and for immigration policies that are more just.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates