Here we go—new national security legislation

Or, it’s not about border security, it’s about immigration

The very first piece of national security legislation introduced by the Carney government, Bill C-2, tabled in the House on June 3, continues a tradition of previous Liberal governments. ^[1] It marshals a wide range of measures under a single and topical banner, suggesting urgency. In the case of C-2, the banner is border security, it’s short form title is “Strong Borders Act,” even though many of the bill’s provisions have little to do with securing the border. In this sense, C-2 mirrors the last piece of Trudeau-era national security legislation, Bill C-70, described as an “Act Respecting Countering Foreign Interference.” It, too, had many provisions with little connection to the foreign interference threat.

Bill C-70 was 89 pages of text. Bill C-2 weighs in at 140! C-70 had a remarkably rapid passage through Parliament, moving at lightning speed from first reading on May 6 to Royal Assent, 6 weeks later, on June 20. While lightning speed may sound efficient and proof-positive that even a polarized Parliament can get things done, it should not be emulated.

C-70 was drastically under-scrutinised, even in its most popular provisions such as the Foreign Influence transparency registry.

C-2, given its multi-dimensional nature, will be a test of two things. One, the willingness of the Carney government, wishing to move its agenda at top speed, to have the patience to allow Parliamentary committees to properly assess the legislation and propose changes as needed. The other test will be the capacity and expertise of the new, forty-fifth, Parliament. Committee chairs and committee members have yet to be selected, and the ability of Parliament to examine C-2 thoroughly will depend on the personalities at play.

What is the reason for C-2, why make it the lead-off? That’s a hard one to answer. Many of the technical elements are of a housekeeping nature. Sections of the bill are designed to deal with immigration issues (not specific to the Canada-US border, it must be said). C-2 contains news measures to deal with money laundering. It turns the ship of the Coast Guard in a new direction, to give it unspecified security and intelligence functions, suggesting a militarisation of the role of the Coast Guard. C-2 is also a crime-fighting bill, particularly with regard to new measures to tighten restrictions on sex offenders, and to allow for more assured access to data for criminal and security intelligence investigations.

In other words, it's a mish-mash. There is a lot jammed in under the chapeau.

But what of the measures to deal with border security, allegedly the essence of the legislation and its raison d’etre? Well, there are provisions to provide for greater inspection capabilities by CBSA at border points of entry. Precursor chemicals for the manufacture of fentanyl can now be regulated by the Minister of Health as part of the battle against the opioid scourge. Both, I think non-controversial. But that’s about it.

I wish the new Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, luck in selling this pretty minimal package to his US counterparts as stiffening Canadian protections at the border. Actually, I don’t wish him luck. I think it is high time the government recognizes that throwing policy changes over the Canada-US border fence to try to appease the Trump administration just looks like weakness. The deck that accompanied a technical briefing offered on June 3 by Public Safety suggests that one major purpose of the Act is to “Contribute to a sovereign and secure Canada by delivering on core elements of a new economic and security relationship with the US.” Actually, the Government has no idea whether it can meet the objective of a new economic and security relationship with the US, and it should not be aligning any legislation to that end. Contribute to a sovereign and secure Canada—fine. Leave it at that.

If C-2 isn’t really about border security, does it have some other beating heart? I think the answer is yes, and it is to be found in the provisions amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). These provisions got a lot of early attention from immigration lawyers and advocacy groups at the technical briefing that accompanied the roll-out of the legislation, and I think they will prove the most controversial elements of C-2. Certainly the ones most deserving of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Among the proposed changes to IRPA one really stood out for me. It involves new powers to the government to “pause” the acceptance of new applications to come to Canada; or even to “pause or cancel” the processing of applications already in the “inventory.” It is suggested that these powers would only be used to deal with health or national security emergencies, but they have an unfortunate Trumpian ring to them. ^[2] They also come with no checks and balances other than the need for the “Governor in Council” (that is the Cabinet as a whole, presided over by the PM) to decide on them. It will be interesting to see whether Parliament thinks that is sufficient, or what it makes of the vague rationale underlying these new powers.

This is not the first piece of national security legislation I would have looked to the Carney government to produce. It lacks root-and-branch rigour, especially with respect to IRPA, which is probably deserving of a wholesale make-over. The provisions around assured access to data to assist criminal and national security legislation should have awaited publication of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians first-ever report on a “lawful access” regime. Linkages to provisions already passed in Bill C-70 should have been made clear. Changes to the Oceans Act respecting the powers of the Coast Guard should have awaited whatever the promised National Security Strategy (NSS) has to say about coastal and maritime security. Indeed, the NSS may ultimately be the seedbed for important new national security legislation. It just hasn’t been produced yet.

One last thing as we contemplate this first legislative step. I hope the Carney government will go back to the playbook contained in the previous government’s National Security Transparency Commitment (NSTC,2017). Here is Principle 6 from the NSTC: ^[3]

To the extent possible, the Government will consult stakeholders and Canadians during the development of substantive policy proposals and build transparency into the design of national security programs and activities.

Principle 3 is a good one as well (it provides for legislative transparency and an explanation of Charter rights protections).

Next time, please.

---

^[1] Bill C-2, “An Act Respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures,” First Reading, June 3, 2025, https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/451/Government/C-2/C-2_1/C-2_1.PDF

^[2] Bill C-2, Part 8; Public Safety Backgrounder, “The Strong Borders Act,” https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2025/06/the-strong-borders-act---government-of-canada-strengthens-border-security.html; Public Safety Canada, “New Release,” June 3, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2025/06/government-of-canada-strengthens-border-security.html

^[3] National Security Transparency Commitment (2017), https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/nationalsecurity/national-security-transparency-commitment/policytransparency.html#a06