The first major bill tabled by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney is raising concern among both civil rights and refugee advocacy groups.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, introduced in the House of Commons June 3, proposes amendments to the Customs Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Canada Post Corporation Act, Oceans Act, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, among others.

Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree said the measures included in the sprawling 140-page document will secure the border, disrupt the flow of fentanyl, combat transnational criminality and clamp down on money laundering, some of the key issues U.S. President Donald Trump said his tariffs are targeting.

Advertisement

On one hand, the National Police Federation (NPF) said members support the bill’s commitment to “modernize Canada’s policing and intelligence frameworks” and strengthen access to digital evidence.” The Canadian Centre for Child Protection endorsed its efforts to “reduce barriers Canadian police face when investigating the growing number of online crimes against children.”

Conversely, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a national coalition of over 40 Canadian civil society organizations, called for a slim, more focused bill to strengthen the integrity of the Canada-U.S. border rather than proceed with this omnibus package containing many aspects “that have little to nothing to do with ‘securing the border.’ ”

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) President John Carpay said while law enforcement groups might embrace new authority to demand basic subscriber information from electronic service providers, such a provision erodes Charter rights.

“This could include internet platforms and social media to turn over their lists of subscribers and indicate where the subscribers live or at least where the IP address is, and that can be done without a warrant,” said Carpay. “That's absolutely terrifying. That's a very broad new power given to law enforcement. Instead of the ‘Strong Borders Act,’ you can call it the ‘Strong Surveillance Act.’ ”

Advertisement

University of Ottawa Professor Michael Geist, a prominent critic of federal online policy, wrote in a June 3 blog post “the Supreme Court has already ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information and IP addresses, therefore requiring a warrant for disclosure.” He anticipates legal challenges will be mounted if the legislation became law in its current form.

Adoption of Bill C-2 would also usher in greater auditory controls over the mail. Amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act would enable the Crown corporation to open letters or packageif there are concerns about potential illicit materials — fentanyl, for example.

Another criticism is the proposal to make it a criminal offence for a person or an entity (charity, business) to accept a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 in a single transaction. A prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more — more than two payments of $5,000 or greater than five payments of $2,000 — would also be considered unlawful.

“Once this becomes a criminal code of sentence, it's very easy for the government to reduce the $10,000 amount down to $5,000 and then $1,000,” suggested Carpay. “Before you know it, your legal limit is you can only send $200 cash on a purchase or a donation.

“Cash is the key to privacy and autonomy. When people use cash, they are free from the surveillance of governments, the surveillance of police, the surveillance of credit card companies, the surveillance of banks.”

Advertisement

Pertaining to the concerns over the bill from immigration activists, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), to which the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society, Catholic Social Services, Catholic Crosscultural Services, and the Dioceses of Calgary and Saskatoon are members, released a statement of denouncement. It called out the new authority to cancel suspend or modify groups of immigration documents (visas, work permits, permanent residency applications) if it is in the “public interest.”

“None of us will be safer if we remove protections from those who need them most,” wrote the CCR on June 5. “This rhetoric and these policies have no place in a country that prides itself on opening its doors to people seeking refuge.”