NEW: Claim that these new drones will allow for “persistent surveillance […] at our border.”

NEW: To secure our borders, we will stand up additional border scanners, drones, and new K-9 teams.

Further, justification for these new laws are based on false accusations that protests against the genocide in Gaza and for Palestinian human rights represent support for terrorism, and that these laws are necessary to combat terrorism in Canada and internationally. Laws (problematic in their own right) already exist for addressing support for terrorist organizations. Limiting or banning protests under the false pretence of addressing terrorism would be a clear violation of Charter rights.

Poilievre also pledged to cut the funding to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. 

There is a massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza, cutting funding to UNRWA based on the unsubstantiated allegations of links to Hamas would be deeply harmful to the Palestinian people.

Further, justification for these new laws are based on false accusations that protests against the genocide in Gaza and for Palestinian human rights represent support for terrorism, and that these laws are necessary to combat terrorism in Canada and internationally. Laws (problematic in their own right) already exist for addressing support for terrorist organizations. Limiting or banning protests under the false pretence of addressing terrorism would be a clear violation of Charter rights.

This is even more concerning when coupled with the pledge to fight “woke ideology,” which in itself threatens to silence speech and ideas that the government does not agree with. We have seen this already, for example, in attacks on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign for Palestinian rights in legislatures, on campuses and in workplaces.

The foreign agent registry, as adopted by parliament, continues to raise significant concerns about its impact on civil society groups that engage in international solidarity and cooperation work, and how it could be manipulated to punish organizations and individuals based on which countries or entities they work with.

They would divest from US-owned defence and IT-system acquisitions.

Divesting from US defence tech makes sense in the current context of annexation threats.

• In introducing this bill, the Liberals fulfilled a platform promise. It was the third time they introduced such a bill.
• Despite this, the government did not prioritize the bill, resulting it in taking more than two years to pass through the House of Commons.
• In a positive move, at committee Liberals took the initiative to introduce rules to allow cooperation between the new PCRC and the existing National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.
• Supported, but did not introduce, amendments to allow third party complaints, third party requests for reviews, and to grant to PCRC more decision-making power over what complaints it could consider.
• Opposed a motion to allow for judicial review of Commission decisions.
• Months after the adoption of Bill C-20 into law, the government has yet to set up the commission, and has not publicly shared when it will be established, despite rushing through border security measures to appease the US government.

• Did not introduce amendments to improve transparency, accountability, third party complaints, or PCRC decision making powers, but voted in favor of most amendments doing so.
• Opposed allowing judicial review of Commission decisions.
• While ultimately voting in favour of the Commission, took steps to delay clause-by-clause of the bill at the House Committee.
• Voted in favour of the bill at all stages.

• Moved positive motions to increase diversity, to ensure Commission reported on efforts for reconciliation with Indigenous communities, to increase transparency, to grant more decision-making power to the Commission, to allow the Commission to make binding recommendations, to improve specified activity reviews, and to allow for judicial review of Commission decisions.
• Voted in favour of the bill at all stages.

• Moved positive motions to limit Commission’s ability to dismiss complaints, and to grant more decision-making power to Commission on what complaints it can investigate.
• Voted in favour of the bill at all stages.

• Moved positive motions to ensure diversity on the commission, to allow for third party complaints, to grant more decision-making power to the PCRC, for the creation of clear rules around accepting or refusing complaints (including regarding national security complaints), to expand who can request a specified activity review, and to give Commission more power to conduct reviews
• Opposed allowing for judicial review of Commission decisions
• Voted in favour of the bill at all stages.

• The Liberals introduced Bill C-26 to address crucial concerns around cybersecurity, but the bill contained significant flaws that could compromise civil liberties and cybersecurity — and, therefore, national security. 
• Moved positive amendments to, for example, ensure application of the Privacy Act to specific aspects of the bill, to clarify that private communications cold not be captured, and to allow for some greater reporting to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
• However, voted against or watered-down multiple other amendments to increase transparency, protect privacy and restrict ministerial powers.
• Moved motion at Third Reading in the House of Commons, rolling back several key amendments before the bill was referred to the Senate

• Proposed motions in support of greater transparency and accountability, and to ensure ability to adequately challenge secret orders.

• Successfully moved motions, including to restrain Ministerial powers, and to add comprehensive annual reporting requirements.
• Moved other motions that were defeated, including to ensure ability to adequately challenge secret orders. 

• Position unknown

• Successfully moved amendment deeming personal and de-identified information to be confidential, among other motions.
• Supported motions to increase transparency and restrict ministerial powers.

• The Liberals introduced the bill.
• The bill was introduced without the public consultation process that typically precedes similar legislation. Instead, the government heavily prioritized industry input.
• Industry, Science, and Economic Development Minister Champagne published a 38-page package of proposed amendments to AIDA, fundamentally altering its shape and implications halfway through the committee’s study and after many witnesses had already testified — worsening the already problematic parliamentary process around the bill.
• The Liberal government resisted many calls – including from the Assembly of First Nations – to split the bill to allow for the needed privacy reforms to pass and for thorough public consultation on strong AI regulations to take place.

• Conservative MP Rick Pervins, who sits on the Industry Committee that studied C-27, was very critical of the bill, of the lack of consultation, and pushed for needed amendments. 

• NDP MP Brian Massé, who sits on the Industry Committee that studied C-27, was critical of aspects of the bill, of the lack of consultation, and deplored the government’s delays in providing promised amendments.

• Supported the bill at second reading. No Green MP sits on the Industry Committee.

• Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon, who sits on the Industry Committee that studied C-27, was critical of aspects of the bill, of the lack of consultation, and was in favour of splitting the bill.

• The Liberals introduced the bill.
• Although legislators promised the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 would not and should not apply to or hinder humanitarian aid, the vagueness of the language has always worried humanitarian organizations. When the Talibans returned to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, the then Liberal government refused to officially confirm that aid organizations wouldn’t be prosecuted for helping the Afghan people. This is despite the US, the UK, the EU countries and the UN taking action to ensure sanctions do not interfere with crucial humanitarian assistance. After months of pressure to amend the law to create a straightforward pathway to provide international assistance again, the Liberals instead introduced C-41 to create a complex and invasive authorization process almost two years later
• After more pressure from civil society, the Liberals supported an amendment to the bill to finally exempt humanitarian assistance from the ATA. However, the exemption does not apply to many Canadian international assistance organizations that carry out vital but not exclusively humanitarian activities, such as the provision of health services, the defense of human rights, peacebuilding efforts and support towards earning a livelihood.
• The government finally launched the authorization regime in June 2024; but as of December 2024, no application has been approved.

• Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption
• Did not support expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance

• Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption and (unsuccessfully) supported expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance. They voted against the bill in the end as “the principle of third-party authorization – effectively forcing Canadian aid agencies to seek permission of the Government of Canada to do their important work in fragile contexts abroad – is unprecedented and unacceptable.”

• Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption and  (unsuccesfully) supported expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance

• Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption and  (unsuccesfully) supported expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance

• The Liberal government had been promising to address this issue since 2019, framing it explicitly around fighting “online hate.” The government eventually released its proposal to tackle online harms in late July 2021, alongside a public consultation. When the election was called a few weeks later, round tables with government officials who could answer questions about the proposal were canceled. While the government’s approach was bad, the proposal itself was worse. 
• In February 2022, the Ministry of Heritage released a “What We Heard” report in which they recognized many of the valid concerns with the government’s approach. They announced a new consultation process led by an expert advisory group that would review these concerns and propose advice on what the government’s approach should be.
• In March 2024, the government introduced Bill C-63 to create the Online Harms Act. The bill was controversial in large part because it also sought to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act in ways that raise civil liberties and human rights concerns.
• The government agreed to split the Online Harms Act from the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act following advocacy by ICLMG and several other experts and groups.

• Have said that they oppose new regulations that could limit free speech, and instead focus on using criminal code to pursue those who post threatening content. However, past Conservative governments have enacted rules that extend the scope and definition of terrorism, including in ways that criminalize speech.

• Have agreed that greater regulations are needed to combat hate online. Were critical of aspects of Bill C-63, including that it should not expand the use of anti-terrorism laws. 

• Unknown

• Supportive of action on Online Harms, but expressed concerns about possible impacts of “terrorism content” provisions

• Although the federal inquiry into foreign interference had yet to issue its final report, in May 2024 the Liberal government introduced new foreign interference legislation, Bill C-70. Much of it reflected proposals from a consultation held from December to February, but failed to respond to many of the concerns that we raised with the government. 
• Following an extremely rushed parliamentary process, the bill was adopted in June 2024 with very little study and minimal amendments. 
• The government ignored many requests from civil society, including the ICLMG, to slow down the process to allow for thorough study, debate and needed amendments to protect Canadians’ rights and freedoms.
• Moved/supported motions that expanded application of the new Foreign Influence Registry 

• Supported the legislation, including expedited study and approval
• Argued that aspects of it should be expanded, including a successful amendment expanding the application of new, controversial, sabotage legislation
• Also moved/supported other motions that expanded application of the new Foreign Influence Registry 

• Supported the legislation, including expedited study and approval.
• Raised some concerns around scope of provisions and the speed of the process
• Successfully moved amendment to allow challenges to CSIS production order to be heard in public
• Moved other positive motions, including to address concerns about proportionality in sentencing
• However, also moved/supported other motions that expanded application of the new Foreign Influence Registry 

• Supported the legislation, including expedited study and approval.

• Supported the legislation, including expedited study and approval.
• Expressed some concerns, and supported/moved motions to increase transparency and reporting
• Moved/supported other motions that expanded application of the new Foreign Influence Registry 

• Senator Marc Gold (the Liberal Government Representative in the Senate) pushed during debate for a return to the threshold of “reasonable general concern” after the Senate committee report recommended the threshold of “reasonable ground to suspect” and the report was adopted on division.

• Conservative Senator Salma Ataullhajan, alongside other non-Conservative Senators, was very concerned the bill would lead to more racial and religious profiling by border agents.
• Conservative Senator David Wells agreed that the bill would lead to racial profiling if unchanged. He also moved to add an amendment that network connectivity of devices must be deactivated during searches.

• Since there are no NPD Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.

• Since there are no Green Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.

• Since there are no Bloc Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.

• In December 2024, the Liberal government, in response to the US president’s pretext for his tariffs threats, released a Border Plan, investing $1.3 billion in the securitization of Canada’s border, including for the installation of 15 new surveillance towers, the purchase of drones, mobilization of Black Hawk helicopters, all equipped with various forms of surveillance tools; the commitment of 10,000 frontline personnel to the border; the creation of a supercharged Joint Operational Intelligence Cell, to better share intelligence between Canadian agencies, including the RCMP, CBSA and CSIS, and with allies, primarily the United States; investing $200 million in Public Safety Canada and the Communications Security Establishment – Canada’s version of the National Security Agency – for increased surveillance activities.
• While a ‘Fentanyl Czar’ was appointed in a matter of weeks, the government had failed to provide any updates on the establishment of the new Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC), which would serve as an independent watchdog for the activities of the RCMP and CBSA. Legislation to enact the PCRC passed in October 2024, but Public Safety Minister David McGuinty hasn’t mentioned it once since being appointed, despite media inquiries.
• The Liberals have continued to fight in courts to uphold the rights-violating Safe Third Country Agreement.
• In 2023, they updated it to automatically turn back anyone crossing in between official points of entry.

• The Conservatives leader Pierre Poilievre presented a plan in December 2024 in response to Trump’s tariffs threats. It included: increasing border patrols, cracking down on illegal narcotic manufacturing and shipping, and expanding the mandate of CBSA officers to allow them to enforce the law beyond border posts; buying into the false narrative of a border crisis.
• Leader Pierre Poilievre slammed ‘illegal border crossers,’ but his own relative lived undocumented in Canada. Poilievre said such individuals should be ‘tracked down’ and ‘deported’.
• They want to enhance the Safe Third Country Agreement.

• NDP MP Brian Masse criticized the Border Plan’s focus on “gadgets and gimmicks” but called for hiring and sending more agents to patrol the border; buying into the false narrative of a border crisis.
• Against the Safe Third Country Agreement.

• Unknown position on Canada’s Border Plan or securitizing the border.
• Against the Safe Third Country Agreement.

• The Bloc Québécois supports the Liberals’ Border Plan but would add to it notably by allowing border agents to intervene along the whole border; buying into the false narrative of a border crisis. They at least recognize that the fentanyl “crisis” is a matter of public health and thus necessitates federal transfers and massive investments in the health system.
• Against the Safe Third Country Agreement.

• Although they have said it is too dangerous to repatriate Canadians in Syria, the Liberal government has repatriated 32 women and children without issue. They have left 20 behind, including several children, and their inaction has led to the death of a Canadian mother who they separated from her children. 
• While the Liberals have advocated strongly for the release of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor from China, they have said little about Huseyin Celil, and have not encouraged other countries to put pressure for his release either. 

• In favour of repatriating children only, and have even qualified that by calling for the repatriation of “young” children, raising questions about teenagers, including those who have been in the camps since they were much younger. They have not advocated for the repatriation of any adults, including parents of the children.
• Two Conservative MPs have called for Canada to do more to secure the release and repatriation of Huseyin Celil; they have both sponsored parliamentary petitions to that effect.

• In favour of repatriating all Canadians, as well as non-Canadian mothers and siblings of Canadian children, detained in NE Syria. This includes those suspected of committing crimes, who would be arrested and tried.
• NDP MP Heather McPherson has pushed for more to be done to return Huseyin Celil to his family in Canada

• In favour of repatriating all Canadians, as well as non-Canadian mothers and siblings of Canadian children, detained in NE Syria. This includes those suspected of committing crimes, who would be arrested and tried.
• Unknown position regarding Huseyin Celil

• Have raised the issue in the house and criticized the government for not acting to repatriate children and adults, and placing those accused of committing a crime on trial
• Bloc MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe signed a 2022 letter calling for the release and repatriation of Huseyin Celil

• On October 20, 2023, 33 MPs — 23 of them Liberals — wrote a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau calling on him to advocate for a ceasefire.
• After voting against a ceasefire at the UN in October 2023, in December 2023, after much popular pressure, Canada voted for a temporary ceasefire at the UN.
• In March 2024, all Liberal MPs – except for three: Marco Mendicino (the newly appointed chief of staff to Prime Minister Carney), Anthony Housefather and Ben Carr – voted in favour of a motion introduced by NDP MP Heather McPherson calling for a ceasefire.
• Ahead of the vote on the motion, Liberal MPs Steven MacKinnon and Mark Garretsen moved a last minute amendment to the motion, with changes including the removal of the recognition of the State of Palestine and sanctions on Israeli officials for inciting genocide.
• The same motion also supported the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and called to end arms exports to Israel. Although Foreign Affairs Minister Joly stated that “no arms or parts of arms would be sent to Gaza” as a result, the government has not canceled 88% of the permits currently being used to send arms to Israel, it hasn’t stopped the flow of arms from Canada to Israel via the USA, and they haven’t stopped importing arms from Israel (thus continuing to fund its war machine).
• The government also put in place – months after the violence began – a temporary visa program to “welcome” a very small number of Gazans (only for those with family in Canada, offering little to no assistance to enter Canada or support once arrived, and requiring extraordinary amounts of information, such as social media links and scars history), treating them more as security threats than civilians in need of protection. The government closed the program on March 6, 2025, after receiving 5,000 applications. Only 645 people have reached Canada after making it out of Gaza on their own. As a comparison, from March 2022 to April 2024, 962,612 applications from Ukrainians fleeing the war were approved, with a total of 298,128 arriving in Canada. 
• The Liberal government suspended its funding to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from January to March 2024 following unsubstantiated accusations by Israel of staff having links to Hamas.
• After more pressure, the Liberal government unenthusiastically supported the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision to order Israel, twice, to take measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
• In May 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Hamas and Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Liberal government objected to Hamas and Israeli leaders being targeted simultaneously by ICC warrants and refused to commit to enforcing them if Israeli leaders entered Canada.
• The Liberal government has done nothing to denounce the police violence, intimidation, fining and arrests of journalists and non-violent protesters, as well as the repression of speech all over Canada related to advocacy for Palestinian rights and lives.
• The Liberal government has failed in its duty under international law to do everything in its power to stop a genocide. In fact, it has clearly been complicit in perpetuating it.

• Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre told caucus members he plans to slash funding to UNRWA – as Harper did in 2010 – following unsubstantiated accusations by Israel of staff having links to Hamas.
• All Conservatives voted against the March 2024 motion calling, among other things, for a ceasefire and an end to arms exports to Israel.
• Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong called the application for the ICC warrants against Israeli leaders “outrageous.”
• In October 24 speech in Parliament, the Conservative leader condemned Prime Minister Trudeau for comments he made suggesting Israeli responsibility for an explosion outside Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. Since then, Poilievre has made no comment on Israel’s well-documented attacks on hospitals and other pieces of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
• Poilievre recently gave a speech at a Toronto synagogue, where he mentioned several pro-Israel talking points, many of which have either been debunked or strongly disputed.

• On October 20, 2023, 33 MPs — including eight NDP MPs — wrote a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau calling on him to advocate for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
• In December 2023, the NDP called on the Liberals to immediately enact special immigration measures to facilitate the evacuation of extended family members of Canadians and permanent residents in Gaza.
• NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh criticized the Liberals for cutting its funding to UNRWA in January 2024 and “punishing Palestinian children”.
• In March 2024, NDP MP Heather McPherson (who has tirelessly advocated for Canada to end its complicity in the genocide) introduced a motion originally calling for the House to – among other things – demand ceasefire and release of hostages, suspend military trade to Israel, ending the occupation of Palestine, ensure continued funding to the UNRWA, expand access to the temporary resident visa program, support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and recognizing Palestinian statehood. All NDP MPs voted in favour of the amended motion.
• NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh criticized the Liberals for not taking a stronger position on the ICC case.
• In May 2024, the NDP slammed the Liberals over slow reunification programs for relatives stuck in Gaza.

• On October 20, 2023, 33 MPs — including both Green MPs — wrote a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau calling on him to advocate for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
• In January 2024, Green leader Elizabeth May sent a letter to the Immigration minister opposing the government’s decisions to cap extended family visas to just 1000 people, and advocating for the scope of the program to be sufficiently broad to ensure the safety of all family members and spouses/partners seeking refuge from the conflict in Gaza.
• Both Green MPs voted in favour of the March 2024 motion. 
• In July 2024, the Green Party published a statement in support of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Unlawful Status of the Prolonged Occupation of the Palestinian Territory by Israeli Armed Forces.
• In October 2024, the Green Party called for an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, the respect of international law and UN resolutions, for Canada to recognize Palestine as a state, and for humanitarian access to Gaza.
• In February 2025, the Green Party published a statement condemning Trump’s proposal to displace Palestinians.

• All Bloc MPs voted in favour of the March 2024 motion.

• Authorized an investigation by the taxpayers’ ombudsman of the CRA’s audits of Muslim charities.
• The Taxpayers Ombudsperson’s review demonstrated the need for a moratorium, accountability and transparency. As we predicted, the TO was unable to access important documents he needed for his review. As a result, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has decided to conduct its own review. Its report is pending.
• None of the other recommendations were implemented.

• They sent a letter to the Minister of Revenue expressing concerns and calling on the CRA to apply the law fairly, but without specifics.

• Sent a letter to the Minister of Revenue expressing concerns and supporting ICLMG’s five recommendations, including a review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and an immediate moratorium on audits.

• No known position

• No known position

• They have refused to say if the French government has made an official request for Dr Diab’s extradition.
• Even though PM Trudeau said in 2018 that what happened to Hassan Diab should have never happened, his government has also refused to commit to rejecting a second extradition request if France made one.

• Conservative justice minister approved Hassan Diab’s extradition to France in 2014.
• Leader Pierre Poilievre has recently posted on social media asking “why is a convicted terrorist living free in Canada?” – contributing to the smear campaign targeting Hassan Diab – irresponsibly ignoring the facts that show Hassan’s innocence and the miscarriage of justice.

• Has called for the Liberals to block the extradition of Dr. Hassan Diab

• Have taken a public stance against the extradition of Dr. Diab

• Unknown

• The only firm commitments that came out of the 2021 National Summit of Action on Islamophobia was the nomination of a Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, as well as a Taxpayers Ombudsperson review of the auditing of Muslim charities.
• They haven’t publicly stated they implemented any other recommended changes by the ICLMG, and the 2024 House report called on them to implement the recommendations of the 2021 Summit.
• The government responded to the 2023 Senate report, only supporting one recommendation – recommendation 13 (for the collection and dissemination of disaggregated data to better take intersectional Islamophobia into account); taking note of all other recommendations – including a few related to national security, except recommendation 11 (establish an independent civilian body to review decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency’s Charities Directorate and provide timely decisions on appeals) which it said it does not support.
• The government has not responded to the 2024 House report yet.

• In 2024, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said the job of Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia was useless.
• The Conservative members sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights published a dissenting report to the 2024 House report, mostly opposing the inclusion of anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism to the study, and calling for the suspension of the funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), repeating the unsubstantiated accusations of ties to Hamas.

• In 2022, NDP Critic for National Revenue (Tax Fairness and Inequality) Niki Ashton issued the following statement: We must eliminate Islamophobia and all forms of racism from our systems of government

• The Green Party of Canada published a statement on the 2022 National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec Mosque Attack and of Action Against Islamophobia reaffirming their “determination to eradicate Islamophobia, and hatred and prejudice in all its forms, whenever and wherever it appears.”

• The Bloc Québécois opposed the creation of the position of a Special Representative on combatting Islamophobia.
• The Bloc Québécois published a dissenting report to the 2024 House report, opposing the denunciation of law 21, among other things.

• The courts have reduced his bail conditions multiple times, and an expert has testified Moe presents no danger to Canada. Despite all this, the Public Safety Minister still refuses to allow Mr. Harkat to stay in Canada although section 42.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives him the power to do so where it is not contrary to the national interest. 
• Moreover, Mr Harkat has been fighting a 2018 federal delegate’s decision that he should not be allowed to remain in Canada, which his lawyers say is based on speculation rather than evidence.

• They have been in favour of Mohamed Harkat’s deportation while in government and have not said anything recently to suggest they have changed their position.

• Oppose the deportation of Mohamed Harkat to torture in Algeria
• In favour of significant reforms to the security certificate system

• Critical of the security certificate system and advocate for stronger powers for special advocates.

• Unknown

• In violation of Canadian and international law, the Liberal government has been supportive of the RCMP repression of Indigenous Peoples blocking pipeline projects they have not consented to.
• In 2021, the Liberal Party promised to prohibit the RCMP from employing neck restraints – like the ones used to kill George Floyd and Eric Garner  – or deploying tear gas or bullets to control unruly crowds. The Liberals abandoned these promises because the RCMP told them to.
• Liberal MPs on the House of Commons justice committee said Ottawa should take steps to keep student protest encampments off university grounds.
• The Liberal government has taken no steps to address problems of accountability at the RCMP or to reform it to stop its agents’ aggressive behaviour, unreasonable action and unlawful arrests.
• Criminal charges were laid against three Palestinian Canadian protestors demanding action from Immigration Minister Marc Miller to bring their Gazan family members to safety, as one – a child – died only weeks before getting approved by the Canadian government. The charges were dropped after the prosecutor was shown video footage from the day.
• The Liberal government has done nothing to protect the right to dissent in Canada in general.

• While in government, the Conservatives did not act to address problems of accountability at the RCMP.
• Conservative MPs have advocated for the greater use of national security measures to police Indigenous land defenders and other activists.
• Leader Pierre Poilievre has called protesters who have demonstrated for a ceasefire in Gaza “lawless mobs” and promised “a crackdown on all terrorist networks that Trudeau has allowed on our streets.” 

• The NDP has spoken out against the surveillance and targeting of activists
• After the November 2021 raid, the NDP published a statement of solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en.
• Several NDP MPs pressed leader Jagmeet Singh to call on NDP BC government to pull RCMP out of Wet’suwet’en territory.
• NDP MPs on the House of Commons justice committee said Ottawa should take steps to keep student protest encampments off university grounds.

• The Greens have spoken out against the surveillance and targeting of activists.
• The Green Party has denounced the deportation of Zain Haq, a nonviolent climate activist, because of a mistake from Immigration Canada.
• The Greens have a deputy leader who was arrested and sentenced to 60 days in prison for protesting at Fairy Creek; and two candidates in the 2025 election who face prison time for blocking an oil terminal.

• The Bloc leader called for the protesters and campers to leave the McGill university campus.

• The Liberal government has not acted to hold the RCMP accountable for lying about use of facial recognition technology, its unauthorized use of other surveillance technologies, and its violation of the Privacy Act, or to ensure that the RCMP changes its behaviour and is forced to be accountable.
• The Liberals continue to support the Five Eyes’ call to weaken encryption.
• The Liberal government responded to the FRT report in February 2023, agreeing with many recommendations that have yet to be implemented, and only “acknowledging” other recommendations. For example, the government stated that it would regulate rather than “prohibit the practice of capturing images of Canadians from the Internet or public spaces for the purpose of populating FRT databases or AI algorithms” (recommendation 17); and that a modernized Privacy Act might include privacy impact assessments rather than imposing “a federal moratorium on the use of FRT by (federal) policing services and Canadian industries unless implemented in confirmed consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or through judicial authorization” (recommendation 18).
• Despite that ambivalent government response to the FRT report, in November 2024, all Liberal MPs voted in favour of a motion to concur in the FRT report, meaning they were in agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.
• The Liberal government responded to the Spyware report in March 2023, acknowledging most recommendations – or the issues related to them – but making no clear commitment to fulfill them.
• Although the Liberal government had introduced Bill C-27 to update privacy laws for the private sector (PIPEDA) and regulate AI, the bill did not meet many of the FRT or Spyware reports’ recommendations, did not apply to the government, and included problematic exceptions for national security departments. In any case, the bill died with prorogation.
• In February 2025, CitizenLab reported that, since 2022, the Liberal government has been quietly negotiating a bilateral agreement with the US under the US CLOUD Act which would allow US law enforcement to issue warrantless data requests and surveillance orders directly to tech companies and other entities in Canada, without oversight from Canadian courts. The negotiations are ongoing despite Trump’s threats to Canada.

• The Spyware report was tabled in the House of Commons in November 2022 but there was no motion to concur in the report, aka to signal agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains. 
• In November 2024, all Conservative MPs voted in favour of a motion to concur in the FRT report, meaning they were in agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.

• The NDP called for greater regulation of surveillance technology including facial recognition. This includes initiating the ETHI committee review of facial recognition, filing complaints with the Privacy Commissioner and demanding concrete action.
• The Spyware report was tabled in the House of Commons in November 2022 but there was no motion to concur in the report, aka to signal agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.
• In November 2024, all NDP MPs voted in favour of a motion to concur in the FRT report, meaning they were in agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.

• The Spyware report was tabled in the House of Commons in November 2022 but there was no motion to concur in the report, aka to signal agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains. There were no Green MP on the ETHI committee.
• In November 2024, all Green MPs voted in favour of a motion to concur in the FRT report, meaning they were in agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.

• In July 2022, the Bloc called for the ETHI committee to study the use of spyware by the RCMP.
• The Spyware report was tabled in the House of Commons in November 2022 but there was no motion to concur in the report, aka to signal agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.
• In November 2024, all Bloc MPs voted in favour of a motion to concur in the FRT report, meaning they were in agreement with the report, including the recommendations it contains.

• The Liberals have accelerated their use of the rights-violating list instead of fixing the racist national security apparatus.

• The CPC strongly advocated for the expansion of the list, including the listing of Samidoun, the IRGC and the Houthis, and supported the addition of the other groups.

• The NDP has been in favour of abolishing the list in the past. NDP MP MacPherson has questioned the addition of the IRGC to the terror list as military service is mandatory in Iran and many conscripts will not have committed crimes – such as cooks – would be captured by the listing.

• When debating a motion introduced by the Conservatives to add the IRGC to the list, leader Elizabeth May called for the question to be referred to the Foreign Affairs House Committee for study.

• Unknown

• They have continued to stall the lawsuit launched by Abdelrazik until October 2024, unfairly delaying justice and redress for his ordeal. Hearings are done; the court’s decision is pending.
• The government acknowledged in a court filing in 2023 that CSIS and the RCMP interviewed Mohamedou Ould Slahi at a Guantanamo in 2003, but denied Canada supplied faulty information that contributed to his detention and torture. Unsure where the case stands; the case does not appear on the Federal Court website.

• Were in power during Abousfian Abdelrazik’s ordeal in Sudan, and refused to provide redress during the Harper government. No change in position during the Trudeau government.
• The Conservatives have refused to say if they support an investigation into Slahi’s allegations.

• The NDP had denounced the “unjust delays” in Abdelrazik’s case.
• The NDP had called for an investigation into Slahi’s allegations.
• Nothing new since the 2021 election.

• Unknown position

• The BQ has refused to say if they support an investigation into Slahi’s allegations.
• Nothing new since the 2021 election.

• The Liberals continue to sell arms in great quantities to states with deplorable human rights records, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.
• In 2023 the government announced their plan to purchase a fleet of US Reaper drones for $2.49 billions, as well as Hellfire missiles and assorted other weapons and equipment for the drones. The initial cost estimates exclude the billions more that would be required to operate the drones over their 25-year lifespan. The drones entered production in Dec 2024.
• After months of international and domestic pressure against the genocide of Palestinians, the Liberals have promised in a non-binding motion in March 2024 to stop selling arms to Israel. However, although they have paused issuing any new permits for weapons exports to Israel, they haven’t suspended 88% of the already existing permits to send arms to Israel, they haven’t stopped the flow of arms to Israel that pass through the US loophole, and they continue buying arms from Israel (marketed as “battle-tested” on Palestinians) thus funding its war machine.
• Prime Minister Carney has recently requested a review of the F-35 fighter jet planned purchase from the US for $19 billion (with the full lifecycle cost of the jets estimated at $77 billion.) Canada has legally committed to buying the first 16 aircrafts.

• The Conservatives have signed the agreement to sell arms to Saudi Arabia under the Harper government and continue to support it.
• Unknown position on the US Reaper drones purchase.
• They have been in support of selling and buying arms from Israel. They all voted against the March 2024 motion for ceasefire and ending arms exports to Israel.
• They continue supporting the purchase of new fighter jets.

• The NDP has opposed the Saudi Arms deal for years.
• The NDP does not support the purchase of armed drones.
• The NDP has demanded a full arms embargo between Canada and Israel.
• They continue supporting the purchase of new fighter jets.

• The Greens oppose the Saudi Arms deal.
• Unknown position on the US Reaper drones purchase.
• The Greens support a full arms embargo between Canada and Israel.
• In a recent reversal of its position, the Greens now support the purchase of fighter jets.

• The BQ was an early opponent of arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
• Unknown position on the US Reaper drones purchase.
• The BQ voted in favour of the March 2024 non-binding motion calling for a one-way embargo. They haven’t signed onto the campaign for a full arms embargo.
• The BQ is in favour of the purchase of new fighter jets.