The Bridge to Canada sign is pictured on May 9. 2025. Credit – Jim West—Getty Images
Canada’s new bill—The Strong Borders Act—proposes a sweeping shift in immigration that, among other items, expands the Canadian Coast Guard’s authority to conduct security patrols, restricts asylum access, and attempts to deal with the flow of fentanyl into the country.
“The Bill will strengthen our laws and keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering,” the bill states.
Introduced on June 3 by Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, the 127-page measure proposes a shift in how the government interacts with the U.S.-Canada border.
The bill comes after President Donald Trump voiced concerns about what he referred to as cross-border fentanyl traffic and irregular migration, when he imposed tariffs on Canada during his Feb. 1 Executive Order titled “Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border.” Trump argued that “Canada has played a central role” in the “challenges” against “illicit drugs” entering the country, alleging there is “a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada” and that Canada must “do more to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept DTOs, other drug and human traffickers, criminals at large, and drugs.”
Here’s what you need to know about Canada’s Strong Borders Act.
What is in Canada’s immigration bill?
Canada’s new immigration bill seeks to impact various areas—from asylum rules to search and seizure, to giving police more power to control and monitor the U.S. border.
The new bill would allow Canada Post’s inspection authority to open mail and would also remove barriers to allow law enforcement to open mail during an investigation—attempting to curb fentanyl movement by what authorities say is performed by organized crime groups. It would expand the power of the Canadian Coast Guard to “conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes,” by amending the Oceans Act, creating a new role for the department. It also would expand the ability for Canadian intelligence agencies to share information with U.S. intelligence.
Related to organized crime, the bill proposes additional restrictions on transactions over $10,000 and cash deposits by any one individual into another’s account.
The process of gaining access to asylum would also change, as the bill looks to bar asylum seekers who have been in the country for over a year, retroactively applying to anyone who arrived after June 24, 2020.
It would further allow the government the ability to pause the acceptance of new applications and “cancel, suspend, or change immigration documents” immediately.
Why is the bill facing backlash?
The proposal has been met with strong opposition from immigration and human rights advocates in Canada, who argue it could restrict civil liberties and violate international refugee obligations.
Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, a Canadian politician who serves at the member of Parliament for Vancouver East, issued a warning about the measure, stating that it should be “alarming” to Canadians.
“Looking at [the bill], particularly with respect to the immigration provisions, it is very concerning to me that the government will now be breaching, I think, people’s civil liberties, I think violating people’s due process and taking away people’s basic rights right now,” Kwan told reporters. “What we’re looking at is the government giving broad, sweeping authority within the government to cancel applications, to withdraw applications, to suspend applications, even those that are already in the inventory that is under process.”
She also shared concerns about citizens’ privacy, and the lack of apparent appeals processes in relation to the new sweeping immigration law.
Canadian migrant justice group Migrant Rights Network also “condemns” the bill, stating that it would “drastically restrict refugee protections and allow for mass deportations and immigration exclusion.” They argue that the “unchecked power” enabled through this bill could allow for migrant groups to have their immigration status revoked “en masse.”
“Prime Minister [Mark] Carney campaigned on being different from Donald Trump, yet his very first bill is a shameful capitulation to racism and xenophobia, which abandons Canada’s legal and moral obligations to refugees and migrants,” said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan in a statement. “With over 3,000 study and work permits already expiring daily because of [Former Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau’s immigration cuts, this Bill will only worsen a humanitarian catastrophe. This bill is immoral, it is illegal, and it will be stopped.”
Speaking with reporters on Friday, Canadian Council of Refugees co-executive director Gauri Sreenivasan stated that the bill mirrors U.S. immigration policy and could “force many people who have no choice because they are under threat in their country or in the U.S. to live underground without status.”
Kelly Sundberg, a former officer with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), also spoke out against the bill, admitting they’re “not optimistic” about it.
“I think all [the bill] does is try to appease the Trump Administration. But I’d like to see legislation that’s designed to keep Canadians safe,” Sundberg said during an interview with CTV News. “So does this legislation improve our border security, improve our immigration integrity, and improve the public safety of Canadians? No, it does not. It doesn’t even come close.”
Sharry Aikan, a law professor at Queen’s University, shares concerns about the bill. Its intent to address concerns with a broken immigration system lies in the right place, she says—but its execution is wrong.
“This is a legislative fix for a set of challenges that should have been addressed through operational measures, not new laws,” Aikan tells TIME. “We need to make sure that when people show up at the border, you know that we have the resources to address them. Yes, 100%. But why dismantle what is in effect?”
Aikan argues in particular against the one year deadline for asylum claims—something she says is a direct mirror of the U.S.’s one-year policy. She provides multiple examples—including one where a foreign national comes to Canada, and year two of their stay in Canada, the circumstances in their home country change and it is no longer safe to return.
“It’s basically shutting off the pipeline to the hearing altogether and saying, the mere fact that you’ve been in a country for 12 months and two days means that you don’t have access to a full fledged refugee hearing,” Aikan says. “What it signals about the priorities of the government is that appeasing the White House right now is a number one concern.”
Contact us at letters@time.com.
