Good morning. Privacy experts, refugee groups and legal scholars are all sounding the alarm about the Strong Borders Act – more on that below, along with the 2025 Emmy nominations and the uproar over the Epstein files. But first:

• Nine First Nations in Ontario launch a constitutional challenge against Bill 5 and Bill C-5
• A Calgary police officer is charged with two counts of murder in a 2023 shooting
• Steel producers warn of dire consequences of a 50-per-cent tariff if a broader U.S. trade deal isn’t reached

Prime Minister Mark Carney admitted yesterday what most leaders have come to realize: Some chunk of Donald Trump’s tariffs are sticking around. “There is not much evidence at this moment of agreements, arrangements, or negotiations with the Americans for any country, any jurisdiction, to have a tariff-free deal,” he said before hopping into a virtual cabinet meeting. Canadians “need to recognize the commercial landscape globally has changed.”

It’s a bit awkward for Ottawa, which said just two weeks ago that it was still hoping to get all the tariffs lifted – and which introduced an entire bill designed to beef up border security after Trump’s repeated fentanyl complaints. Even though we know that a tiny fraction of the drug in the U.S. actually makes its way over from Canada, Trump keeps using those claims to justify tariffs on our exports, including his recent 35-per-cent hike. So when Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree introduced Bill C-2 last month, he said it was meant to address a number of items “that have been irritants for the U.S.” Then he added that the bill, also known as the Strong Borders Act, is “not exclusively about the United States.”

Well – yes. While Bill C-2 does include reforms aimed at cracking down on fentanyl and money laundering, there are a whole bunch of other measures packed into its 127 pages. The words “sweeping powers” come to mind. “Potential clash with Charter rights” do, too. So let’s take a look at three big weaknesses in the Strong Borders Act.

The power: Federal law enforcement officials – including CSIS, police officers, border agents and prison guards – could force a broad range of service providers to turn over information about their clients without a warrant.

The fine print: Doctors, psychologists, accountants, landlords, plastic surgeons, internet providers, car rentals, rehab centres, abortion clinics, hotels, banks – they’d all have to comply with a law officer’s demand for information, and they’d be gagged from revealing they even received that demand. If a medical provider, for example, didn’t want to divulge whether, where or when she saw a patient, the onus would be on her to challenge the order in court within five days. And those orders aren’t confined to offences in the Strong Borders Act, either. Police could investigate any breach of any federal law that they suspect might have taken place.

The problem: The Department of Justice itself acknowledged that warrantless demands for information could run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially the clauses that protect privacy and prohibit unreasonable search and seizure. “The Supreme Court has been clear about the privacy rights of Canadians,” Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in Internet Law, told The Globe. He says a constitutional challenge to Bill C-2 is virtually guaranteed.

The power: Details related to any document issued by the Immigration Department, such as passports and visas, could be shared with law enforcement, federal, provincial and territorial agencies – and the United States.

The fine print: There’s quite a bit of detail in these immigration documents. Canadian passport applications involve photographs; place and date of birth; current and past addresses; employment or school information; telephone numbers, emails and marital status; and the contact info of friends, family and colleagues serving as emergency contacts, references and guarantors. Visa applications can also include fingerprints and details of military service. All of that personal information would be fair game to pass along to a “foreign entity” if the Immigration Department signs off.

The problem: Human rights experts warn that sharing immigration details with the Trump administration would be a major boon for its mass deportation program. “Data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials,” the Citizen Lab wrote in its analysis. And while there are current limits on the information CSIS can request from Immigration – it can’t investigate lawful protest or dissent – the Strong Borders Act seems to circumvent those protections. Not that they’re iron-clad anyway: A recent watchdog report found that the Immigration Department gave CSIS a protester’s passport details, even though it had no evidence the protester posed a security threat.

The power: In order to tackle what it calls “rising migration pressures,” Ottawa would restrict asylum seekers from receiving formal refugee hearings, terminate immigration applications if it’s deemed to be in the “public interest,” and further tighten the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S.

The fine print: People who arrived in Canada more than a year ago (retroactive to June 2020) would no longer have their asylum claims heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board and could face deportation. The bill would also prevent people who crossed the U.S. border illegally from claiming asylum once they’re in Canada for 14 days, which is currently allowed under the Safe Third Country Agreement. Instead, they would face deportation, as well.

The problem: Canada cannot deport asylum seekers from conflict-torn places such as Ukraine, Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Israel and the Gaza Strip. But the changes in Bill C-2 risk creating a whole class of foreign residents without status – no longer allowed to make refugee claims with the IRB, no longer eligible for work permits or health coverage while they wait for hearings, and unable to return to their home countries because the risks are too great. “They can’t find ways to contribute and participate in dignity,” Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, told The Globe. “We are concerned that they’ll be left in a kind of permanent limbo.”