Bill C-2 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Strong Borders Act
An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures
Government bill. Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedJune 3, 2025
- Debated in principleNot reached
- Studied by a committeeNot reached
- Passed its first chamberNot reached
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 3 June 2025, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures (Strong Borders Act) and it was given first reading. Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions. Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations. Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make r…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes precise numerical thresholds and defined schedules with frequent use of 'prescribed' terms and ministerial opinions. This creates clear rules in some areas but leaves many obligations and triggers open to later definition or discretion.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application”
Subjective ministerial judgment replaces an objective test for appointing a representative.“reasonably designed, risk-based and effective”
Vague standard for program requirements invites argument over compliance.“reasonable grounds to suspect that”
Subjective threshold for opening mail allows broad official discretion.“prescribed circumstances”
Core obligations depend on future regulations rather than statutory text.
Clear-cut
“cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more”
Fixed dollar amount creates a clear monetary trigger.“maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years”
Specific numeric threshold for the offence category.“compliance order violation means a violation referred to in subsection 73.18(1)”
Cross-reference to a defined violation narrows the scope.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council retain wide power to set prescribed violations, circumstances, and regulatory details, plus temporary scheduling of precursors and compliance orders.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'in the opinion of the Minister' and broad information-sharing powers could support a Charter challenge on vagueness or overbreadth under sections 7 or 8.
Disputing a charge under it. While some violations are tied to specific subsections or dollar amounts, many hinge on 'prescribed' rules or reasonableness standards that a person could dispute factually or legally.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.