Bill C-2 (the Strong Borders Act) is a broad omnibus bill that layers new enforcement powers across Canada’s border, immigration adjudication, criminal information-gathering and anti‑money‑laundering (AML) regimes. It revises the Customs Act and CBSA access rules, narrows who can proceed with in‑Canada refugee claims, creates executive powers to suspend or terminate classes of immigration applications and permits more routine cancelation or variation of immigration documents.
Parallel measures expand judicially‑authorized production orders and information demands for subscriber and transmission data, and create a standalone Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act giving the Minister and designated officials new tools to require assistance from electronic service providers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill grants executive and operational powers: (1) new GIC and ministerial orders that can stop accepting, suspend or terminate classes of immigration applications and cancel or vary documents; (2) tighter eligibility rules and faster removal timing for many in‑Canada refugee claimants; (3) expanded powers to compel subscriber, transmission and preservation data (including ex parte production orders and cross‑border production requests); and (4) an obligations-and‑enrolment regime for financial entities and new enforcement tools against money‑laundering, plus an act obliging electronic service providers to enable authorized access.
Who It Affects
Federal enforcement and intelligence agencies (CBSA, RCMP, CSIS), the Refugee Board and immigration system, large and small financial institutions and reporting entities (including new enrolment obligations with the Centre/FINTRAC), telecommunications and major electronic service providers designated as “core providers,” and owners/operators of bridges, ports, airports and bonded warehouses.
Why It Matters
C-2 rewrites operational authority and information flows: it centralizes executive capacity to pause or terminate immigration streams, lowers procedural friction for investigations via expedited data orders, and shifts substantial compliance costs and legal risk onto private-sector actors (telecoms, online platforms, payment service providers and transport facility owners). For compliance officers and counsel, it replaces many case‑by‑case judicial gates with a mixture of ex parte tools, administrative orders and strong monetary penalties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Strong Borders Act groups dozens of amendments into a single security-minded package. On the immigration side it imposes substantive new gatekeeping rules for in‑Canada refugee claims: claimants who entered after June 24, 2020 face a one‑year bar to making a claim unless prescribed exceptions apply; claims made after irregular entry along the Canada–US land border at non‑ports‑of‑entry also can be time-barred by reference to regulatory time limits.
The bill requires claimants to supply documents and appear for examinations within ministerially‑specified timeframes and creates procedures for determining abandonment or withdrawal of claims. Critically, the Governor in Council (and in some cases the Minister) gains power to issue orders that suspend acceptance, suspend processing, terminate processing or cancel classes of visas and documents in the “public interest,” with mechanisms for restricting applicability to specified classes and for handling fees and returns.
In parallel, the bill strengthens operational enforcement and investigative tools. It inserts explicit authority into the Criminal Code and related statutes to obtain and examine computer data, creates an “information demand” (minimum 24‑hour response) for persons providing services to the public, and allows ex parte production orders targeting subscriber information and transmission data.
Those authorities include non‑disclosure orders and mechanisms to request data from foreign providers under court authorization. CSIS receives a statutory information‑demand power with a process for judicial review; search‑warrant forms and computer‑data examination procedures are updated to reflect modern digital investigations.On the financial side, the Proceeds of Crime (ML/TF) Act is retooled: reporting entities face new mandatory enrolment with the Centre (FINTRAC), expanded record‑keeping and public disclosure rules for identifying information on the roll, a fresh classification of regulatory violations as prescribed violations with high maximum penalties (including percentage‑of‑revenue caps), and new criminal sanctions for certain reporting and information‑provision failures.
The bill also creates a ban (with prescribed exceptions) on accepting third‑party cash deposits to accounts in many sectors and criminalizes acceptance of cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more by persons soliciting charitable donations or engaged in business, subject to prescribed exceptions.Finally, the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act sets up an administrative regime to require electronic service providers (and classes of “core providers” designated by regulation) to build and maintain technical and operational capabilities to facilitate authorized access by law enforcement and security agencies. The Minister may issue orders to individual providers, offer discretionary compensation, and designate officials to inspect, audit and enforce compliance; providers may obtain temporary exemptions where compliance would create systemic vulnerabilities.
The Supporting Act also creates a distinct administrative penalties regime and criminal offences for obstruction and false statements.Taken together, the bill moves Canada toward a model that emphasizes centralized, executive-driven controls and faster operational access to data and documents, while expanding regulatory compliance duties and enforcement penalties for the private sector. It does so by combining statutory changes, new regulatory authority, administrative orders and strengthened search/production mechanisms, shifting many discretion points from judges to ministers and designated officials while retaining judicial review pathways in several places.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Governor in Council may, by order (section 87.301), direct that specified classes of immigration applications not be accepted, have their processing suspended, or be terminated, and may limit orders to particular groups or application classes.
Paragraphs added to section 101(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act create a one‑year bar for claims made more than one year after entry (for entries after June 24, 2020) and a separate bar for claims made after entering at a Canada–US land location that is not a port of entry.
The Criminal Code gains an ‘information demand’ (s. 487.0121) allowing peace or public officers to require basic subscriber/service information with a minimum 24‑hour response time and a 5‑day judicial review window for the recipient.
A new ex parte production order for subscriber information (s. 487.0142) permits a judge to order a provider to prepare and produce all subscriber information tied to specified data, and judicial authorization can be granted to request transmission/subscriber data from foreign providers (s. 487.0181).
The Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act lets the Minister issue time‑limited orders to electronic service providers (including ‘core providers’) to develop and maintain capabilities that enable authorized access, while allowing exemptions where compliance would introduce systemic vulnerabilities; the Minister may also provide discretionary compensation for costs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded facility obligations and export access for officers
The bill expands the Customs Act owner/operator obligations: owners or operators of bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, wharves or docks must provide, equip and maintain suitable buildings and facilities free of charge for program‑legislation enforcement purposes. It adds explicit officer powers to access premises attached to places where export‑destined goods are handled and to open or remove packaging. Practically, this shifts certain infrastructure and logistics burdens onto transport facility owners and bonded/sufferance warehouse operators and creates an on‑site access expectation for officers to inspect export shipments without separate warrants.
Rework of precursor schedules and formal confirmation of police enforcement exemptions
Schedule V is rewritten, precursors are reorganized across Parts/Tables and the Minister is given clearer authority to temporarily schedule or delist precursors by order. The bill also confirms and broadens regulations that exempt designated police and military police members (and persons under their direction) from certain Criminal Code conspiracy/attempt/accessory provisions when acting under police enforcement regulations for CDSA and the Cannabis Act. Operationally, this speeds regulatory responsiveness to emerging precursor threats while legally protecting specified enforcement activities where regulators impose terms and conditions.
Information sharing, representation and stronger ministerial/GIC powers over processing
The Department and IRPA amendments create new departmental disclosure authorities with agreements specifying permitted uses and secondary‑use limits, permit the Minister to designate representatives for minors or those unable to appreciate proceedings, and insert multiple procedural controls: mandatory times to provide documents, officer examinations, and new rules allowing the Refugee Protection Division to decline hearings if the claimant is not physically present. The statutory creation of GIC or ministerial 'orders in the public interest' (87.301–87.305) permits suspension, termination or cancellation of classes of applications or documents, with rules about recommendations, concurrence with Public Safety and publication timing. These changes economically and operationally centralize immigration management for large cohorts rather than individual adjudications.
Modernized warrants, information demands and cross‑border production mechanisms
The Criminal Code is amended to expressly cover computer data and computer systems in warrants, to authorize the examination and extraction of computer data (including conditions and limits), and to allow warrants authorizing remote searches or extraction by specialists. New statutory tools include an information demand to providers (Form 5.0011), ex parte production orders for subscriber information (Form 5.0052), and a process to authorize peace/public officers to request data from foreign providers for up to 30 days after judicial authorization. The changes bundle procedural protections (short judicial review windows, non‑disclosure orders, and notice obligations) with broader ex parte options intended to accelerate investigations.
New statutory regime obliging electronic service providers to enable authorized access
This standalone Act defines core providers, authorizes regulations requiring technical and operational capabilities (including extraction and organized presentation of authorized information), and permits the Minister to issue orders to providers — with required consultations and an opportunity to make representations before orders are made. It builds in an exemptions pathway where compliance would introduce systemic vulnerabilities and creates inspection, audit and compliance orders administered by designated persons, together with administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences for obstruction or false statements. The Act preserves other statutory authorities and contemplates discretionary compensation for provider costs.
Mandatory enrolment, expanded reporting, new violation categories and heftier penalties
The bill adds a mandatory enrolment regime for entities covered by the Act, a public roll of identifying information (with limited public access), and a scheme classifying prescribed violations and compliance‑order violations with substantial maximum penalties (up to the greater of a fixed cap and 3% of gross global revenue for entities). It creates compliance agreements and compliance orders, with non‑compliance amounting to distinct compliance‑order violations and civil recovery mechanisms. The Act also introduces criminal offences for large cash transactions and third‑party cash deposits (with prescribed exceptions) and raises maximum fines and custodial penalties for several reporting and disclosure offences.
Limited immunity for Canada Post and broader coast guard security authority
Canada Post is given statutory protection from liability for seizures, demands or detentions made under other Acts of Parliament and an obligation to receive written notice when mail is seized (within 60 days). For coast guard services, the Oceans Act expands the Minister’s powers to include security patrols and the collection, analysis and disclosure of information or intelligence, and creates an explicit authority to collect and disclose intelligence in support of other departments, which operationally integrates marine assets into security and enforcement activities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal enforcement and intelligence agencies (CBSA, RCMP, CSIS): gain faster, broader statutory tools to obtain subscriber/transmission/computer data, access export goods and use coast guard information and facilities to support enforcement and intelligence work.
- Treasury, Finance and regulatory authorities (Centre/FINTRAC): benefit from a mandatory enrolment roll and enhanced detection tools and statutory authority to classify and penalize non‑compliance, improving visibility into high‑risk flows.
- Government managers (Ministers and Governor in Council): obtain expeditionary administrative levers—orders to suspend acceptance or processing of application streams and to cancel or vary documents—enabling rapid policy‑level action on migratory or security surges.
Who Bears the Cost
- Electronic service providers and telecoms, especially those designated as 'core providers': must build, test and maintain technical capabilities, accept inspections and audits, respond to information demands and production orders, and face administrative penalties and obstruction offences if they fail to comply.
- Payment service providers, reporting entities and small business owners: face new enrolment, record‑keeping and reporting obligations, cash transaction prohibitions and significantly higher administrative and criminal penalties for contraventions.
- Owners and operators of transport facilities, bonded warehouses and sufferance warehouses: must provide and maintain customs facilities free of charge and grant on‑site officer access to goods destined for export, incurring infrastructure, operational and privacy costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is speed and scale of state action versus procedural safeguards and private‑sector burdens: it replaces case‑by‑case judicial scrutiny with administrative orders and ex parte production tools to accelerate investigations and cohort‑level immigration control, but that concentration of power raises predictable tensions over privacy, meaningful judicial oversight, and the cost and security trade‑offs imposed on critical infrastructure and technology providers.
The bill advances operational speed and central control at the cost of expanding executive discretion and compressing judicial gates. Several provisions are intentionally elastic—‘prescribed circumstances,’ regulations authorizing the Minister or Governor in Council to define classes and limits, and orders whose content is left to future regulation or ministerial decision.
That design gives administrators flexibility but means key boundaries (what counts as a ‘prescribed circumstance,’ who fits a class, what secondary‑use limits apply for shared personal information) will be set later by regulation or policy. Implementation will hinge on those delegated instruments and on ministerial practice.
Privacy and oversight questions are persistent: the new production and information‑demand authorities are ex parte, often with short judicial‑review windows; CSIS obtains an explicit statutory information‑demand power; and the Supporting Act authorizes intrusive inspections and audits. The bill creates notice and limited review mechanisms, but those remedies operate after demands or orders are issued and often only within short timeframes.
There is also a technical trade‑off embedded in the Supporting Act—providers may refuse compliance when it would create a systemic vulnerability, but the definition and invocation of that exception will determine whether the requirement results in meaningful access or a symbolic obligation that providers routinely exempt. Finally, the AML changes layer heavy civil and criminal penalties (and revenue‑based caps) onto compliance programs; for multinational groups, calculating gross global revenue for penalty caps and coordinating cross‑border enforcement will become a practical compliance and litigation issue.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.