Latest news with #StrongBordersAct
Toronto Star
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
Mark Carney is proving to be very popular — with conservatives
It's still early days, but so far I'm pretty impressed with what I see from Canada's new conservative government. Voters clearly wanted a big change after a decade of Justin Trudeau's Liberal approach, and boy are they getting it. There was the throne speech, delivered by no less a personage than the King himself. That alone was a great homage to our enduring traditions and storied institutions. No more of those tiresome apologies for the flaws in our collective story. Time to celebrate being Canadian! True conservatives had to love it. And the speech itself was all 'build, baby, build,' in the words of our new PM, Mark Carney. Let's get those resources out of the ground and on their way to foreign markets. Plus a tax cut! No wonder what remains of the left — the NDP rump in Parliament, the unions and environmentalists — was left seething on the sidelines. Clearly, their day is over. Then this week, the capper: the government's first big piece of legislation is called the 'Strong Borders Act' and it's all about giving new powers to police and security agencies and tightening up the asylum system that spun out of control while the Trudeau Liberals ruled the roost. It's a sprawling bill and despite the name it's about a lot more than the border. It would give Canada Post greater authority to open your mail. It would let police and others demand that digital service providers hand over personal data about their users, without having to get a warrant in many cases. All in the name of fighting crime. The usual suspects — the NDP again, civil libertarians, refugee advocates — are up in arms. But it's all being done in the name of security and managing our relationship with Donald Trump. The government seems to be using the Trump crisis as cover to give law enforcement agencies powers they've been seeking for years. Given the PM's record so far, it's no surprise that people in parts of the country that lean heavily Conservative are getting behind him. A new poll of Albertans, out this week, shows they're just as impressed with Carney as they are with Pierre Poilievre. I have just one big question about this: what do the Liberals make of it all? What do they think about the new government's tilt to the right? ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW OK, OK, enough along those lines. Yes indeed, our new conservative government is a Liberal government, though a Liberal government of a very different stripe. Others have noticed this paradox, if that's what it is. Jonathan Pedneault, late of the Green Party, said during the recent election campaign that Carney was 'starting to look like a Progressive Conservative.' And writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, David McLaughlin, once chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, says 'Canada elected its first progressive conservative prime minister in over 30 years' in the person of Mark Carney. McLaughlin goes on: 'From cancelling the consumer carbon tax, to pledging to build pipelines and offering a middle-class tax cut, Carney is actively placing conservative alongside progressive in his party's governing policies … Welcome to the new Canada, where PC doesn't stand for 'politically correct' but 'progressive conservative.' ' I prefer to think of Carney as a conservative progressive, but let's not quibble over labels. The important thing is the Liberals have pulled off a rather astonishing reinvention. If nothing else, it's proof of their fabled ideological flexibility or, if you prefer, their shameless opportunism. Whatever works, they'll do it. Whatever's needed to meet the moment, they'll pull it out of their tool bag. It's all the more remarkable since many of the same people are involved. The minister who presided over the immigration file in 2021-2023 while the system plunged into crisis, Sean Fraser, is now Carney's justice minister. What does he make of the tough measures to crack down on asylum shopping? Just curious. Perhaps only the Liberals could do all this, and perhaps they could do it only at a moment of crisis. An actual Conservative Party government in 'normal' times would run into a wall of resistance if it championed 'build, baby, build,' slashed taxes, ripped up the asylum system and trampled on privacy rights in the name of fighting crime. Instead, we'll see if the 'conservative' government we've ended up with can manage the trick. So far, they're off to a good start.
Cision Canada
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Cision Canada
Statement by Prime Minister Carney on the National Day Against Gun Violence Français
OTTAWA, ON, June 6, 2025 /CNW/ - "Canada's new government has a mandate to keep communities safe. On National Day Against Gun Violence, we affirm our commitment to deliver on that mandate with purpose and full force. "Earlier this week, we tabled the Strong Borders Act – giving law enforcement additional tools to secure the border, combat organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering. "We are also increasing our capacity to intercept illegal guns coming into our country with the deployment of scanners, drones and helicopters, additional personnel, and K-9 teams to the border. We will also be moving forward to revoke firearms licences for those convicted of intimate partner violence and those subject to protection orders. "Canadians voted for change, and we will be delivering that change with decisive action over the coming months. Working with law enforcement and partners at all orders of government, we will keep communities safe, get guns off our streets, and make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with car theft, home invasions, human trafficking, and drug smuggling." This document is also available at
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Statement by Prime Minister Carney on the National Day Against Gun Violence
OTTAWA, ON, June 6, 2025 /CNW/ - "Canada's new government has a mandate to keep communities safe. On National Day Against Gun Violence, we affirm our commitment to deliver on that mandate with purpose and full force. "Earlier this week, we tabled the Strong Borders Act – giving law enforcement additional tools to secure the border, combat organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering. "We are also increasing our capacity to intercept illegal guns coming into our country with the deployment of scanners, drones and helicopters, additional personnel, and K-9 teams to the border. We will also be moving forward to revoke firearms licences for those convicted of intimate partner violence and those subject to protection orders. "Canadians voted for change, and we will be delivering that change with decisive action over the coming months. Working with law enforcement and partners at all orders of government, we will keep communities safe, get guns off our streets, and make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with car theft, home invasions, human trafficking, and drug smuggling." This document is also available at SOURCE Prime Minister's Office View original content: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
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.
