This spring, the Mark Carney government introduced Bill C-2. Formally dubbed the Strong Borders Act, the legislation gives the federal government and border officials broad new powers to search devices, collect data, and make immigration decisions without full parliamentary oversight. The bill also allows the government to suspend certain refugee protections during a declared emergency. Supporters argue it’s a necessary response to rising threats like smuggling and organized crime. Critics warn it opens the door to government overreach. What does Bill C-2 actually propose? And what does it signal about the government’s approach to national security? To help unpack the bill’s implications, I reached out to Wesley Wark, one of the country’s most thoughtful analysts of intelligence and security policy.

Do you think this law is a good idea?

Before answering that question, let me set the scene.

One unique feature of Bill C-2 is that it is the first piece of national security legislation proposed by the Carney government. What do they do? They land a massive, 130-page bill on Parliament with a resounding thud in early June, just as the House of Commons was heading towards its summer recess. The bill had no benefit of any stakeholder consultations; it just appeared on the parliamentary order papers.

Naturally, opposition members of Parliament complained about the lack of time to familiarize themselves with the bill, about its omnibus nature, and tried to identify some first-blush problems. A Charter statement from the minister of justice—which is a kind of early warning label, flagging how a government bill might clash with Canadians’ constitutional rights—did not make its appearance until after the House had held its initial debates on the bill.

Faced with such a large and indigestible piece of legislation, with so many moving parts, opposition Conservatives were quick to take up partisan positions. The main motif was that the government was not being tough enough on crime. Probably not what the government and its neophyte public safety minister, Gary Anandasangaree, desired.

So the rollout was ill-conceived?

Yes. But, look, no law is ever perfect. Our parliamentary process is based on the idea that legislation the government introduces can be improved through detailed study, including expert testimony, by parliamentary committees. That’s the theory.

The practice can be rougher as time pressures can intrude; committees depend on the contributions of parliamentarians, who will not be experts themselves; research support is limited; and the list of experts called to assist the committee is subject, sometimes brutally so, to partisan influence. Given the outcome of the recent election, committee deliberations will not include New Democrats, whose party failed to gain official status. NDP members could always be counted on in the past to probe civil liberties issues raised by government bills. Not this time.

The committee that will be tasked with a deep—or shallow—dive into the legislation is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, or SECU. Astonishingly, five of the seven members of the committee are newly elected MPs. Only one member has previously served on SECU, Conservative Dane Lloyd. This has to be counted as a gaffe: complex national security legislation meets rookie MPs.

That’s quite a scene you’re setting. What will the committee find?

Not just 130 pages but a bill in sixteen parts that amends all kinds of existing legislation and contains what the Liberals, when critiquing Conservative bills while in opposition, used to love to call “problematic elements.” The major problematic elements include changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act impacting........

© The Walrus