Latest news with #BillC-2
5 hours ago
- Business
Carney and Chinese premier agree to regularize communication between Canada and China
Headlines Latest News Podcasts (new window) Prime Minister Mark Carney at Parliament in Ottawa, June 5, 2025. Photo: La Presse canadienne / Sean Kilpatrick Posted: June 6, 2025 4:04 PM Leaders also committed to working together to address the fentanyl crisis, PMO readout says. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Chinese Premier Li Qiang have agreed to regularize channels of communication between the two countries. A readout from Carney's office also says the leaders committed to working together to address the fentanyl crisis. Canada and China have been involved in a trade dispute. China has imposed tariffs on Canadian canola oil and meal, peas and seafood in retaliation to Canadian levies on Chinese-made electric vehicles, steel and aluminum. In his conversation with Li, Carney raised the issue of trade affecting agriculture and agri-food products, including canola and seafood, as well as other issues. Carney said earlier this week that Ottawa is working urgently to remove Chinese tariffs on Canadian agriculture and seafood products. The Canadian Press Word of Nathaniel Veltman's appeal comes on 4th anniversary of attack on Afzaal family. 8 hours ago Courts and Crime Environment Canada says air quality in the city is 'very high risk' as of noon Friday. One Canadian Economy bill crafted to strengthen Canada's economy, sovereignty in face of Trump's tariffs. Bill C-2 gives power to pause, cancel and suspend immigration documents. Distribution sites have been plagued by deaths, reports of violence in last 2 weeks. 13 hours ago International
9 hours ago
- Politics
Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.
Mbonisi Zikhali came to Canada in 2009 from Zimbabwe to pursue a master's in journalism at Carleton University. Post-graduation, the international student found himself homeless in Windsor and applied for refugee status – a privilege soon unavailable if Bill C-2 becomes the law. The bill is unnecessary and not sympathetic at all to people's well-being, Zikhali said. Many experts and community groups working with newcomers in Canada agree. They are calling the Liberal government's sweeping new legislation, Bill C-2 or the Strong Borders Act, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee, and say they hoping the legislation does not become law. Zikhali said he came on scholarship and in 2012 found himself in Windsor picking tomatoes at a greenhouse. Soon enough, he was living on the streets, and lost his passport which also had his study permit in it. Applying for refugee status, Zikhali said, was his saving grace and worries this bill will deprive vulnerable people of a safe haven. What is Bill C-2? The legislation proposes changes to a number of laws including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 2 days agoDuration2:43The Liberal government proposed new border legislation this week. But critics say they worry the law will do more harm than good. The CBC's Pratyush Dayal reports. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for international students and temporary residents. Take this hypothetical: An Afghan international student who came to study here in July 2020. When the Taliban takes over in August 2021 and things become uncertain back home, that student could have applied for asylum. But with this bill, the one-year time period would have lapsed and they would be ineligible. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers — people who enter Canada between official ports of entry — to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending the measures (new window) . There's a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada, Diab told CBC News. We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone. 'Very U.S.-like' bill: refugee help centre director says Windsor's Matthew House gives refugees a place to live and helps them with resettlement. Mike Morency, the organization's executive director, says he worries this bill will put more vulnerable people at greater harm. It continues to align our immigration system with that of the United States, Morency said. Refugee claimants are not the problem. The one year-ban is a major concern for us. The other major concern for us is the ability of the government to declare an emergency and suspend applications. That one to me feels very U.S.-like. Morency said he understands the government's will to try to cut back on international students and migrant workers making a refugee claim as a way to stay in Canada, but worries for people who have a legitimate need for protection being unfairly targeted. It also feels very much like a workaround to our commitment to the Geneva Convention. If the government wants to step out of the Geneva Convention, then then we need to do it with integrity and we need to approach the UN and say we're going to withdraw, he said. Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, agrees saying the bill violates Canada's most basic legal obligations and is immoral . 'Gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status': Migrant Rights Network Hussan asserts the bill infringes upon Canada's legal commitments and ethical standards by granting the government excessive authority to cancel permits. Every refugee gets to have the right to have their case heard. That's now being taken away, he said. Collectively it's a bill that gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status… This is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill. It's illegal. Without any ability for people to appeal or have their case individually heard, Hussan said, the bill allows the government to make people undocumented or just throw people out of the country in the hundreds of thousands . Syed Hussan says the Migrant Rights Network condemns Bill C-2's anti-Refugee and mass deportation provisions. Photo: CBC The changes also allow the federal immigration department to share information more widely with different agencies within Canada. Hussan said anyone who was not a citizen or later became a citizen will have their data impacted by the bill. Hassan said this is similar to the US immigration policies. This is Carney's first test and he's failed it. He's no different from Donald Trump. 'Major rollback of rights,' 'disservice to refugees': Queen's university law professor Sharry Aiken, professor of law at Queen's University, also finds the bill troubling. Very disappointing. It's a betrayal of many Canadians that supported this government in the most recent election, she said, noting these issues weren't part of the Liberal election campaign. The omnibus bill, she said, is quite complicated with 16 different parts and neither serves to reform the asylum system nor address Canadians' privacy rights. Typically, omnibus bills don't get the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, she said, which is concerning. Aiken said the one year-bar for asylum claimants represents a major rollback of rights . No longer are these claimants eligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, she said. The division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) hears and decides claims for refugee protection in Canada. Aikens said this arbitrary bill will also very quickly develop a backlog. The bill proposes a legislative fix for a problem that doesn't require new law. It requires operational intervention, she said. This one year rule mimics what's in place in the U.S. and what has been the subject of extensive international criticism… This bill does a disservice to refugees and betrays the Canadian public's trust in the Liberal government for ensuring a fair refugee determination system consistent with international standards. She urges the MPs to separate out the provisions having the issues desegregated. 'Will make the process more cumbersome': immigration lawyer Toronto-based immigration lawyer, Mario Bellissimo, said with the bill creating arbitrary distinctions of 14 days and one year after June 2020, an individualized assessment approach is being taken away. While the number of refugee claimants have recently dipped, Bellissimo said the bill signals that Canada wants to potentially limit immigration. It wants to send messages to individuals who want to traverse the system over many years without legitimate claims that this is not a destination of choice for you, he said. Bellissimo agrees that targeting individuals who impact the immigration system in a negative way is important but the bill will end up targeting individuals in genuine need of assistance. Pratyush Dayal (new window) · CBC News
a day ago
- Politics
Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill
Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending controversial new measures in the Strong Borders Act, such as giving her office the power to cancel immigration documents en masse and placing time limits for asylum seekers to make their applications. There's a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada, Diab told CBC News. We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone. Introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, is meant to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen the border and keep Canadians safe, according to the federal government. The bill would make dozens of amendments to existing laws. Its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would force asylum seekers entering the country, including students and temporary residents, to make claims within a year. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said mass cancellations of immigration documents would not be done without careful consideration by cabinet. Photo: CBC / Mark Crosby The new law would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada. And it would speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn. Groups such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are raising concerns about these measures. There are a few categories of people who may end up making a claim after they've been in Canada for more than one year for fully legitimate reasons, said Adam Sadinsky, the group's advocacy co-chair. He cited examples such as changes in government in someone's country of origin, the breakout of conflict or their human rights advocacy in Canada placing a target on them. They may now be in danger returning back home in a way that they weren't when they first arrived, he said. Federal government data shows some 39,445 asylum claimants processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency between January and April. (new window) Sadinsky said if the government's motivations are about clearing backlogs, it may be creating another problem. Asylum seekers who find their application rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can file appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. However, shutting them out of the asylum route after a year could make them turn to the Federal Court of Canada for recourse instead, a body that has been public (new window) about its own courtrooms facing severe delays with immigration cases. It's a lot more work for the court, Sadinsky said, when people start getting removal dates from Canada and they have to ask the court for motions for stays of removal from Canada. Sadinsky suggested the government could have reduced backlogs by issuing blanket approvals for would-be asylum seekers from countries where Canada recognizes there is an imminent danger to sending them back, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. WATCH: Public safety minister says border bill will give law enforcement better tools to deal with crime Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Public safety minister says border bill will give law enforcement better tools to deal with crime Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will 'keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering,' as well as 'enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.' Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government needed to act, though he recognized courts are facing efficiency problems. We need to be able to do two things at once, he said about changing the asylum system and reducing court backlogs. Reached for comment, the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court said in a statement it would simply hope that any potential impact on the court's workload would be taken into account, citing a previous amendment to immigration law under Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2010 that included four new court positions. Mass cancellation powers The Migrant Rights Network, an advocacy group, said it is alarmed about the government giving itself the ability to cancel previously issued immigration documents in large groups. What this is, is setting up of a mass deportation machine, said its spokesperson Syed Hussan. Just go out and say we're walking away from the Geneva Convention. Diab said any mass cancellation decisions would be taken by the whole cabinet, not just her office, and they would not be done lightly. These are in exceptional circumstances, when you're talking about mass cancellation or suspension, she said. For example, when COVID happened, we literally had applications coming in, and the system had no authority to suspend or cancel those applications … we could have health risks again. We could have security risks. Bill C-2 is now moving through Parliament. The legislation would normally be studied by parliamentary committee next, though neither Diab nor Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, could say which committee would pick it up. Committees have not been named yet for this sitting and it is unclear if they will before Parliament wraps up for the summer at the end of June. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it intends to write a letter outlining its concerns to the federal government, and would hope to present at committee when the moment arrives. Raffy Boudjikanian (new window) · CBC News ·
Canada Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Canada Standard
The proposed Strong Borders Act gives police new invasive search powers that may breach Charter rights
The new Liberal government has tabled its first bill in Parliament, the Strong Borders Act, or Bill C-2. Buried within it are several new powers that give police easier access to our private information. The bill responds to recent calls to beef up the enforcement of our border with the United States. It gives customs and immigration officials new powers: to search items being exported, like potentially stolen vehicles, and to deport migrants believed to be abusing Canada's refugee protections. But while facing pressure from the U.S. to act, the Canadian government is using the apparent urgency of the moment to give police and intelligence agents a host of new powers to search our private data - powers that have nothing to do with the border. Some of them are already controversial and will no doubt be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada, if and when they're passed. But many have also been on the wish list of previous governments, as part of "lawful access" bills that would make it easier for police to obtain details about a person's online activity in cases involving child pornography, financial or gang-related crime. Why now? Why make another attempt to lower the barriers to police access to private data? And what is the controversy over these new powers? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to privacy of anyone in Canada. Police need authority - explicit permission set out somewhere in the law - to carry out a search or seizure of our private data for an investigative purpose. A law that allows police to do this must itself be reasonable, in the sense of striking the right balance between law enforcement and individual privacy. For the first 20 years of the web, it wasn't clear what the police could or couldn't do to gather information about us online. The Supreme Court held in 2014 that when police ask Shaw or Telus to give them a name attaching to an online account, this amounts to a search. While a person's name and address may not reveal much on its own, the court held, it opens a door to something very private: a person's entire search history. But the court in that case did not decide what kind of power police needed to make this demand, only that police need permission in law to make it. In 2024, the Supreme Court held that when police ask for an internet protocol (IP) address linked to a person's online activity, even that is private because it can open a window onto a lot more personal information. Police have been using warrant provisions in the Criminal Code to make a demand for an IP address, or the name and address linked to an online account. To get a warrant, in most cases, they need to show a judge they have reason to believe a crime has been committed that is linked to the account - in other words, they must show probable cause. Police have complained about how difficult this can be in some cases. They've long been calling for more tools. The Strong Borders Act makes it easier for police and other state agents in a few ways. It will be easier to get a warrant because the new bill allows police to ask service providers like Shaw or Telus - without a warrant - whether they have information about an IP address or a person's account. To then obtain that information, police need a warrant - but on the lower standard of reasonable suspicion of a crime, instead of probable cause. This can also apply to foreign entities like Google or Meta. Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents can ask a provider like Shaw or Google whether they have information about an account holder on no grounds at all. But in this case, the person of interest can't be a citizen or a permanent resident. More concerning are powers in the bill compelling companies like Google or Apple, along with Shaw and Telus, to assist police in obtaining access to private data. Any company that provides Canadians with a service that stores or transmits information in digital form - pretty much anything we do on a phone or computer - can be ordered to help police gain immediate access to our data. The bill does this by stipulating that a company can be told to install "any device, equipment or other thing that may enable an authorized person to access information." There are important limits on this. Police can only gain access if they have a warrant or other lawful permission. And a service provider need not comply with any order that would "introduce a systemic vulnerability," like compelling them to install a backdoor to encryption. But the point is that these new powers compel companies to implement "capabilities" for "extracting... information that is authorized to be accessed." They turn the brands we have an intimate relationship with - gmail, iCloud, Instagram and many others - into tools of the state. For some of us, the thought that Apple or Google can now be conscripted to serve as a state agent to facilitate ready access to private data is unsettling. Even if there are safeguards. Courts will have to decide at some point whether searches conducted under these new powers strike a reasonable balance between law enforcement and personal privacy. Courts have held that our privacy interest in personal data is high. Whether police interest in quicker and easier access to that data in certain cases is equally high is an open question. But one thing is clear: it doesn't seem to have much to do with the border.
3 days ago
- Business
Bank of Canada holds interest rate at 2.75%
Headlines Latest News Podcasts (new window) Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem and senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers give a statement and answer questions about the central bank's interest rate announcement. Photo: The Canadian Press / Justin Tang Rate decision comes amid economic uncertainty and tariff tensions. Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? The Bank of Canada is holding the interest rate at 2.75 per cent for the second time in a row. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem has a tough balancing act in front of him with this rate decision as United States tariffs still hang in the balance. In March, the central bank cut its rate by 25 basis points to 2.75 per cent. The bank held the 2.75 per cent rate in April to control inflation, noting Canada's trade war with the U.S. could lead to a recession. There has been speculation about whether Macklem would hold that rate or cut it further to offset a rise in prices due to tariffs. U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum — two key Canadian industries — to 50 per cent. Macklem is holding a news conference about the decision at 10:30 a.m. ET. Peter Armstrong (new window) All eyes now turn to the bank's next decision on July 30. That release comes with a full updated set of forecasts. Today, the bank said it's holding while it gains more information on U.S. trade policy and its impacts. The bank hopes to have more information about trade policy by the time we meet here again next month. Macklem's remarks Jenna Benchetrit (new window) In his pre-published remarks, Macklem addresses U.S. tariffs — specifically that China and the U.S. have stepped back from high tariffs, that negotiations are underway between the U.S. and other countries and that the market turmoil we saw in April has receded. However, the outcomes of the trade negotiations are highly uncertain, tariffs are well above their levels at the beginning of 2025 and new trade actions are still being threatened, he says. Sounds like trade uncertainty will be a major theme during Macklem's news conference. Industry leaders say federal government also needs to address unfair trade practices — like steel dumping. Despite growing interest in the model, experts say there are hurdles to building new units. First plumes reached Mediterranean on May 18, with more arriving this week. Bill C-2 allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents in the 'public interest'. Companies are using AI hiring bots to screen, shortlist and talk to job candidates. Advocates say the …
