Election 2025: National Security Info Card

The federal Election 2025 is upon us. The outcome of this election could have a significant impact on the federal government’s approach to national security, anti-terrorism and the protection of civil liberties in Canada.

And so, as we have done for the previous three federal elections, we have analyzed the parties’ promises, made so far, regarding national security, as related to ICLMG’s mandate, as well as their past positions and actions – which can often give an even better idea of what they will do compared to what they say they will do. We hope it helps you to make an informed voting decision, and that you keep civil liberties in mind when you head to the polls!

1. Analysis of the parties’ 2025 promises on national security

2. National security positions since the 2021 election

2.1 Legislation

2.2 Non-legislative issues

1. Analysis of the parties’ 2025 promises on national security

Before looking at each party individually, we’ll make a general comment on this elections’ promises. There has been a huge emphasis on defence and security in reaction to the US president Trump’s threat of annexing Canada. As we have said in our recent op-ed: Canada must disentangle itself from the US national security regime, and protect rights, freedoms and the vulnerable. Not only staying entangled with the US military and border apparatus is highly risky, but it’s also making us complicit in rights violations. 

Unfortunately, there has been little pushback on the exaggerations and lies around the border “crises”, little talk of protecting people against repression of dissent, government surveillance, and information sharing agreements with foreign states, as well as almost no mention of reform and accountability for rights violations committed by Canada’s national security agencies nor of commitments to protect the vulnerable, including asylum seekers coming from the US, and people struggling with drug addiction. 

Here is our analysis of the national security promises, related to our mandate, that main federal parties have made for the 2025 election as of April 17, 2025:

Liberal Party of Canada

Promises ICLMG’s take
Establishing the Bureau of Research, Engineering and Advanced Leadership in Science to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces and Communications Security Establishment have the made-in-Canada innovative solutions they need in areas such as AI, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and other advanced research and technology. No mention of much-needed legislation to regulate AI, especially high-risk AI, and protect the privacy of people in Canada. A public debate, including regarding a ban on the use of facial recognition technology – and spyware – by law enforcement and national security agencies is necessary. At the very least, this legislation should not include exemptions for national security, like Bill C-27 did.
Recruit 1,000 more RCMP personnel, train 1,000 new CBSA officers, and create a first-in-class drone capability that will build and deploy aquatic and airborne uncrewed vehicles to defend our arctic, our undersea infrastructure, our borders, and our allies.  As detailed below in several sections – including on the Border, Repression of dissent and Surveillance – the border securitization approach is not the right response to the public health issue of drug addiction, and the human rights issue of asylum seekers coming from the US. And before adding more agents, we absolutely need reforms and accountability from the RCMP who have been found to have violated the rights of journalists and land defenders many times.
Liberal Leader Marc Carney said there is an arms embargo against Israel, and won’t use the word genocide to describe what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza. It has been confirmed by many international law experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Amnesty International, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza but Canada is still sending weapons to Israel, including via the US, and buys weapons from Israel, thus financing its violence on Palestinians, and violating its international obligation to stop the commission of a genocide.

Conservative Party of Canada

Promises ICLMG’s take
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre pledged to deport individuals visiting Canada who participate in what he described as “antisemitic crimes” or “hate marches.”

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

 As stated by the NCCM, Canada’s existing laws already allow for the removal of non-citizens who are convicted of crimes. This proposal could be interpreted as putting further scrutiny on those marching for Palestine, and for weaponizing border services to deport people for dissent — using language like “hate marches,” which has no basis in Canadian law. 

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.
The party pledged to add at least 2,000 border agents, extend CBSA powers along the entire border and install border surveillance towers, as well as truck-mounted drone systems to spot unauthorized crossings. As mentioned above, the border securitization approach is not the right response to the public health issue of drug addiction, and the human rights issue of asylum seekers coming from the US.

New Democratic Party

Promises ICLMG’s take
The NDP would cancel the contracts for US-built F-35 fighter jets and P-8 Poseidon aircraft. They have committed to buying the fighter jets from other sources, although they would cost $74 billion over their life-cycle, and are extremely polluting. Let’s put that money towards making life better for people in Canada instead.
The NDP condemns the genocide in Gaza; wants Canada to respect the decisions of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice; is for a full two-way arms embargo; has defended the necessity of funding UNRWA. As you can read in the Complicity in genocide section below, the NDP has pushed in Parliament for ceasefires, an arms embargo, ending the occupation of Palestine, ensuring continued funding to the UNRWA, expanding access to the temporary resident visa program, supporting the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and more.

Green Party of Canada

Promises ICLMG’s take
Greens would “combat racist practices in policing and law enforcement” and “fix discriminatory practices” in public services. As you can read in the Repression of dissent and Islamophobia sections, that’s an important commitment, especially regarding policing, and they are the only party to have made it.
The Greens now support the purchase of fighter jets.

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

 Their support of the purchase of fighter jets is a puzzling reversal of their previous position in contradiction with their green mandate, as the fighter jets are extremely polluting.

Divesting from US defence tech makes sense in the current context of annexation threats.
They would suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US and […] change refugee provisions to extend access to scientists, activists, civil servants, journalists, judges, lawyers, doctors and other categories of US citizens and permanent residents who have felt targeted by US President Trump. The STCA violates Canadian and international law. It is also clear that the US is not a safe country at the moment, especially not for asylum seekers. Those new refugee categories are a very important commitment that shows much-needed solidarity with people targeted by the current US administration.
They would stop selling weapons to countries that “abuse human rights” including a full two-way arms embargo on Israel. An important commitment as, although that is already Canadian policy, it is not being enforced.  

Bloc Québécois

Promises ICLMG’s take
The Bloc will push for the immediate implementation of the foreign registry, as well as a way that citizens can denounce “suspicious acts.” The ICLMG has been very critical of the foreign interference law that was rushed through parliament in Spring 2024, including the fact that any group in Canada that may work with a foreign, state affiliated organization – even if they are not acting at the behest of this organization – would need to register publicly that they are acting under “foreign influence.” In the US, a similar law has led to unfounded investigations of environmental groups, and the requirement for at least one well-respected national environmental group to register as a “foreign agent.” It could also mean forcing universities to provide information to the Foreign Influence Registry if they are working on a research project in association with a foreign university that happens to be state-owned. We can expect similar results in Canada, chilling free expression, free association, and the ability to work with international partners on important social causes.
The party would work to define “transnational repression” in the Criminal Code to prevent states from monitoring, intimidating and repatriating dissidents.  This is an interesting proposition. Protecting dissent and dissidents is crucial but of course we would need more details. A similar desire to protect dissidents from the Canadian state would have been better.

*****

2. National security positions since the 2021 election

2.1 Legislation

Bill C-20: Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

Introduced: May 19, 2021

Adopted: Oct. 31, 2024

Third reading in the House of Commons: Unanimous

Bill C-20 creates a new, independent review agency for both the RCMP and CBSA, known as the Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC). It will replace the current RCMP review body, and create the first ever independent review body for the CBSA. Advocates welcomed the long overdue review body for CBSA and RCMP, but warned gaps will undermine accountability.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • 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.
Greens
  • 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.
Bloc
  • 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.

Bill C-26: An Act respecting cybersecurity and amending the Telecommunications Act

Introduced: June 14, 2022

Died with prorogation

Second Reading in House of Commons: Unanimous

Third Reading: No recorded vote; the bill was concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed all in one motion.

This bill would have granted broad powers to government ministers that raised serious concerns about the potential for secret surveillance, especially given the role of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) in protecting cybersecurity in Canada.

Liberals
  • 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
CPC
  • Proposed motions in support of greater transparency and accountability, and to ensure ability to adequately challenge secret orders.
NDP
  • 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. 
Greens
  • Position unknown
Bloc
  • Successfully moved amendment deeming personal and de-identified information to be confidential, among other motions.
  • Supported motions to increase transparency and restrict ministerial powers.

Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 & the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act

Introduced: June 16, 2022

Died with prorogation

Vote at Second Reading in the House of Commons: The Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens all voted in favour of the bill; all Conservatives voted against it.

Bill C-27 was the government’s proposed update to Canada’s private sector privacy law, namely the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would have increased powers granted to the Privacy Commissioner, created a new tribunal, and enacted a new Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). As per our mandate, we specifically denounced two problematic areas of the bill:

1. Bill C-27 maintained overly-broad exceptions to consent when it comes to the collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal information for national security reasons.
2. AIDA lacked the necessary protections and safeguards, and included unacceptable exceptions for “a product, service or activity that is under the direction or control of” several national security departments and agencies. 

Advocates pushed for AIDA to be severed from C-27 and redrafted after thorough public consultation, so that necessary privacy law reforms could be adopted.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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
  • 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.
Greens
  • Supported the bill at second reading. No Green MP sits on the Industry Committee.
Bloc
  • 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.

Bill C-41: International assistance and anti-terrorism laws

Introduced: March 9, 2023

Adopted: June 20, 2023

Third reading: The NDP unanimously voted against the bill. All other parties unanimously voted in favour.

Humanitarian aid and international assistance generally is being hindered by Canada’s anti-terrorism laws, particularly in Afghanistan – a risk ICLMG has long warned about. In March 2023, the government tabled Bill C-41 to ostensibly address the issue by creating an authorization process for carrying out international assistance in regions controlled by terrorist groups. Among other concerns, the new authorization regime places the onus on groups to prove they do not violate vaguely defined security assessment rules. These rules allow the Minister of Public Safety to deny an authorization based solely on whether any individual involved in a project, including international partners, has undefined “links” to terrorism or has ever been simply investigated on terrorism grounds. The ICLMG has documented time and again how such vague rules result in harmful impacts, including: “guilt by association” based only on unsupported allegations; political interference or ministerial discretion based on political expediency; and the promulgation of both systemic and individual bias and racism. There is nothing limiting the examination of “links” or “investigations” to within Canada either, meaning that designations or investigations by foreign governments and agencies, including those who more readily deem human rights defenders or political opponents as “terrorists,” could be considered in these assessments.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption
  • Did not support expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance
NDP
Greens
  • Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption and  (unsuccesfully) supported expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance
Bloc
  • Supported amendments to create a humanitarian exemption and  (unsuccesfully) supported expanding exemption to cover broader forms of international assistance

Bill C-63: Online Harms Act

Introduced: February 26, 2024

Died with prorogation

The bill did not complete second reading therefore there has been no vote on it.

Bill C-63 responded to many of our concerns with the government’s original “online harms” proposal from 2021, but several aspects of the bill continued to raise serious concerns:

  • The proposed category of “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism” is, by its nature, overly broad and vague.
  • Given there is a nearly identical, and more specific, harm of “content that incites violence,” a terrorism-focused harm is unnecessary and redundant.
  • While not explicitly requiring platforms to proactively monitor content, it does not disallow such actions either.
  • Platforms would be required to preserve data relating to posts alleged to incite violence, violent extremism or terrorism for one year, so that it is available to law enforcement if needed for an investigation.
  • The proposed Digital Safety Commission, which would enforce the rules under the Online Harms Act, is granted incredibly broad powers with minimal oversight.
  • A lack of clarity around hearings and investigations could allow for malicious accusations of posting “terrorist content,” and uncertainty around recourse for those whose content is erroneously taken down by platforms.
  • Part 2 of the Act amends Canada’s existing hate crime offences and creates a new stand-alone hate crime offence, and is only tangentially related to Part 1. It has raised serious concerns among human rights and civil liberties advocates in regard to the breadth of the offences and the associated penalties, including possible life imprisonment for unlawful speech.
Liberals
  • 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 seeked 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • 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. 
Greens
  • Unknown
Bloc
  • Supportive of action on Online Harms, but expressed concerns about possible impacts of “terrorism content” provisions

Bill C-70: Countering Foreign Interference Act

Introduced: May 6, 2024

Adopted: June 20, 2024

Final vote: Unanimously in favour

Bill C-70 was introduced following much pressure and fear-mongering around foreign interference. It was rushed through Parliament in less than 7 weeks with the artificial excuse of needing to urgently counter interference, allowing the government to ignore civil society groups’ many massive concerns on the impact of the bill on the rights and freedoms of people in Canada. Our concerns include:

  • Providing CSIS with new forms of warrants, granting it extra-territorial reach for foreign intelligence activities, and allowing the service to disclose information to any person or entity would lead to increased surveillance, diminished privacy, and racial, religious and political profiling.
  • Possible life imprisonment for even minor offences committed in association with a foreign entity could infringe on freedom of expression and association, and raises concerns of proportionality in sentencing.
  • The bill would transform how federal courts handle sensitive information that can be withheld from appellants or those seeking judicial review, undermining due process in courts through the use of secret evidence.
  • Changes to sabotage laws, including amendments passed by the House of Commons, threaten the right to protest and will undermine the rights of Indigenous land defenders and their allies.

Read our text Combating interference without trampling on rights for more details.

Liberals
  • 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 
CPC
  • 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 
NDP
  • 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 
Greens
  • Supported the legislation, including expedited study and approval.
Bloc
  • 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 

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act

Introduced in the Senate: March 31, 2022

Died with prorogation

There was no official vote and so we cannot know how every Senator felt about the bill. Some Senators disagreed with the amended bill but agreed to pass it on division. The amended bill went on to the House of Commons in October 2022 but never passed first reading. 

In 2020, the Alberta Court of Appeal found the provisions of the Customs Act used to justify the search of personal electronic devices at the border to be unconstitutional because they did not require any legal justification for the search. This placed electronic devices in the same category as the search of a suitcase, wallet or purse. Because travellers carry so much more private information in their phones and other devices, the court ruled there needed to be a higher threshold that justified those searches. 

In response, Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016, proposed an entirely new threshold known as “reasonable general concern.” Multiple civil liberties, legal and human rights experts rejected this new threshold as being overly-broad and creating a way to avoid addressing the specific privacy and rights concerns of searching cell phones and laptops. Such a weak threshold would also mean that those who already face disproportionate levels of searches and interrogation at the border, including Muslim, Indigenous, Black and other racialized people, would continue to be subject to profiling and discrimination.

After the testimonies of many groups, including the ICLMG, the Senators agreed to replace “reasonable general concern” with the more established “reasonable grounds to suspect.” While still lower than “reasonable grounds to believe,” reasonable grounds to suspect provides a stronger, known threshold that is already present in the Customs Act, including for the searching of cross-border mail and for strip searches. Other positive amendments were added but other worrisome aspects of the bill remained unaddressed.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • Since there are no NPD Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.
Greens
  • Since there are no Green Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.
Bloc
  • Since there are no Bloc Senators, we cannot report on the position of the party on this bill.

2.2 Non-legislative issues

Border and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers

US President Trump has threatened tariffs and annexation based on exaggerated and flat out false concerns about fentanyl and migration at the northern border, barely concealing his real predatory economic and trade goals. 

Not only are migrants and asylum seekers being scapegoated but their search for protection and a better life is being conflated with criminality. This approach undermines the fact that these are human rights and public health issues that should be addressed through improved and extended social programs and rights protections, not massive border securitization.

Furthermore, the measures being proposed only serve to further entangle Canada in the US’ national security regime at a time when doing so is even more dangerous than usual, with threats of annexation, and the weaponization of American national security tools against migrants and asylum seekers. 

The Border Plan ends with a reminder that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) and its Additional Protocol are still in place. Under the STCA, in effect since December 2004, Canada and the US each declare the other country safe for refugees and close the door on most refugee claimants at the US-Canada border. The US is not a safe country for refugees, therefore some will irregularly (not illegally, as this is legal under Canadian and international law) cross the US-Canada border between official land crossing points to be able to ask for asylum. The fact that many people do not feel safe to make their asylum request in the US should not disqualify them from asking for asylum in Canada and have a fair hearing. No one is automatically accepted. Because of the STCA, more asylum seekers have had to cross the border between official points of entry, risking and sometimes resulting in deaths and injuries. Source 1, source 2 & source 3 

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

Canadians detained abroad

The House of Commons Foreign affairs committee recommended Ottawa repatriate Canadian children detained in North Eastern Syria. Furthermore, the United Nations as well as several countries have called on all states to repatriate their nationals detained in North Eastern Syria, adults and children, in accordance with international law, due process and for safety reasons.

Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil has been imprisoned in China since 2006 for defending the rights of his Muslim Uyghur community and as a result, being branded a terrorist by the Chinese government.

Liberals
  • 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. 
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • 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 MacPherson
Greens
  • 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
Bloc
  • 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

Complicity in the genocide of Palestinians

Israel is waging a genocidal war on Palestinians. It has killed 50,000 to date – most likely many more according to some sources – displaced and starved millions, as well as attacked neighbouring populations. Erasing more than 100 years of colonization and dispossession of the Palestinian people, this violence is too often framed as a legitimate response to the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. That day was described by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Biden as “Israel’s 9/11” – thus giving Israel the same permission the US gave itself to commit mass-scale human rights and international law violations, violence and atrocities in the name of the “war against terrorism”. However, genocide can never be justified. Millions have and continue to protest this genocide all over the world, calling for a permanent ceasefire, arms embargo and international sanctions against Israel to stop the violence.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • 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.
Greens
  • 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.
Bloc
  • All Bloc MPs voted in favour of the March 2024 motion.

CRA’s Prejudiced Audits

In 2021, we published a report on the Canada Revenue Agency’s prejudiced audits against Muslim charities. In it, we recommended that:

  1. The federal government refer this issue to review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA).
  2. The Minister of National Revenue declare an immediate moratorium on the targeted audit of Muslim charities by the Review and Analysis Division (RAD) until the review has concluded. 
  3. The Ministry of Finance revisit the anti-terror regulatory, policy and legislative landscape, particularly the 2015 National Risk Assessment and its impact.
  4. The federal government amend the NSIRA Act to allow for complaints from the public regarding the CRA’s national security-related activities.
  5. The NSIRA and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) coordinate to carry out regular reviews of the CRA’s anti-terrorism activities.
Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • They sent a letter to the Minister of Revenue expressing concerns and calling on the CRA to apply the law fairly, but without specifics.
NDP
  • 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.
Greens
  • No known position
Bloc
  • No known position

Hassan Diab

Hassan Diab was extradited to France in 2014 on accusations of participating in a terrorist bombing in 1980, despite the very weak and convoluted evidence presented during the extradition case. He then spent more than 3 years in a French prison, mostly in solitary confinement, while judges investigated his case, without ever going to trial. Judges decided not to lay charges as they found he was not even in France at the time of the bombing, and closed the case. He was then released and returned to Canada in January 2018. Since his release, more and more evidence of Canadian Department of Justice officials interfering on behalf of the French government have arisen. Since, legal and human rights experts, as well as the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, have called for the reform of the Extradition Act. Despite all this, the Special Assize Court in Paris declared Dr. Diab guilty and sentenced him to life in prison following a rushed and unfair trial in which all exculpatory evidence was ignored and no new evidence was presented. Recently, Dr. Diab has been the target of a smear campaign, death threats, and renewed calls for his extradition. Source

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • Has called for the Liberals to block the extradition of Dr. Hassan Diab
Greens
  • Have taken a public stance against the extradition of Dr. Diab
Bloc
  • Unknown

Islamophobia

Islamophobia being a direct cause and consequence of our anti-terrorism and national security laws and actions, it is important that governments act to undo the damage they have done to Muslim communities, directly or indirectly. Many of the issues we work on intersect with islamophobia and the struggle against it, therefore this section will only cover what wasn’t covered elsewhere:

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
Greens
  • 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.”
Bloc
  • 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.

Mohamed Harkat and Security Certificates

Mr. Harkat, a United Nations Convention refugee who has lived in Canada since 1995, faces deportation to Algeria under a highly controversial security certificate. Security certificate hearings take place in secret, which means neither he nor his lawyers have ever been allowed to confront and cross-examine his accusers. Mr. Harkat faces deportation to Algeria where he will risk imprisonment, and torture. He has lived in fear for almost 19 years despite never having been charged with a crime. No one should be deported to torture. Get more details

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • Oppose the deportation of Mohamed Harkat to torture in Algeria
  • In favour of significant reforms to the security certificate system
Greens
  • Critical of the security certificate system and advocate for stronger powers for special advocates.
Bloc
  • Unknown

Repression of dissent

Land defence

November 2021: the RCMP Community-Industry Response Group (C-IRG) launched the third of three highly-militarized raids on Wet’suwet’en territory (the other two in 2019 and 2020) which resulted in a total of more than 74 arrests of land defenders, legal observers and members of the media. It was reported that the C-IRG had “used ‘lethal-force overwatch’ — snipers armed with rifles” during that 2021 raid.

May 17, 2022: RCMP C-IRG arrested 18 people protesting against logging at the Argenta-Johnsons Landing in BC. BCCLA and six other groups have submitted a complaint against the C-IRG denouncing those arrests as unlawful and the agents’ aggressive behaviour.

January 1, 2024: The C-IRG was renamed as the Critical Response Unit – British Columbia (CRU-BC) to better reflect its expanded scope from providing “strategic oversight in addressing energy industry (gas and oil pipeline) incidents and related public order, national security and crime issues” to “other demonstrations related to logging, fishing, homelessness, and anti-COVID mandate (also known as Convoy).” 

February 2024: The RCMP senior media relations stated that “C-IRG has deployed to pro-Hamas demonstrations to support the police of jurisdiction”; equating protests in support of Palestinian rights and lives with support for a listed terrorist entity in Canada.

July 2024: Wet’suwet’en Chief Dsta’hyl was sentenced to 60 days of house arrest for blocking the construction of the CGL pipeline, thus violating a court injunction barring him from his own territory. Amnesty International declared him the first prisoner of conscience held in Canada. 

September 2024: The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) found that the broad exclusion zones and checkpoints used by members of the C-IRG around the 2020-2021 Fairy Creek protest to protect the old growth forest were unreasonable. The CRCC review also concluded that searching people who seek to cross into what is an unreasonable exclusion zone violates their rights; it was unreasonable for RCMP members at the protest sites to remove their name tags; and an RCMP member who wore the unauthorized “Thin Blue Line” patch on his uniform acted “unreasonably and broke policy.”

The CRCC is still completing a separate systemic investigation of the activities and operations of the C-IRG in BC started in March 2023.

February 2025: The RCMP commissioner formally apologized and acknowledged the force acted unreasonably, failed to uphold its duties and disregarded jurisprudence and common law in detaining journalist Jerome Turner in 2020.

Although the RCMP commissioner accepted all findings and all recommendations from that report but one, it was the fourth report to denounce the RCMP’s unreasonable actions in dealing with land defenders and journalists. So it remains to be seen if the RCMP will make the necessary changes in its culture and on the field.

Also in February 2025, a judge found that the RCMP violated the rights of three land defenders – who were blocking the construction of the CGL pipeline on Wet’suwet’en territory, including Wet’suwet’en Molly Wickham also known as Sleydo’ – by racially mocking them and by entering their structures without a warrant. Ignoring the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision that states the Wet’suwet’en nation holds title to the land, the judge still found that those arrested were guilty of violating the injunctions that barred them from their own land, although he will reduce their sentences because of the violations of their rights. Amnesty has announced it will declare these land defenders “prisoners of conscience” if their sentences deprive them of liberty. Mary Lawlor, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, denounced their criminalization in her March 2025 report.

For all these reasons and more, many have called for C-IRG to be abolished.

Anti-genocide/pro-Palestine protests

Many governments around the world have wrongfully conflated the anti-genocide/pro-Palestine protests with terrorism and have responded with problematic laws, police violence, criminalization of dissent, speech repression, deportations and threats of funding-cuts to NGOs and universities. In Canada, in particular, we have seen the following:

  • the arrest of eleven people for protesting against a charity that supports IDF soldiers – luckily all charges have been dropped since;
  • the heavy fining and arrests of pro-Palestine protesters in Ottawa and Calgary;
  • the Ontario legislature’s keffiyeh ban;
  • police violence against people at protests and campus encampments;
  • the arrest of Montreal journalist Savanna Craig while covering a pro-Palestinian protest (again the charges were dropped months later).
  • the arrest and charging of author and activist Yves Engler for social media posts opposing Israel’s apartheid and genocide; etc.
Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.” 
NDP
Greens
  • 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.
Bloc
  • The Bloc leader called for the protesters and campers to leave the McGill university campus.

Surveillance

In 2014, the BCCLA filed a complaint against the RCMP for spying on Indigenous and climate advocates opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. The RCMP had stalled the publication of its watchdog’s reports for seven years. In December 2021, the Federal Court had to tell the RCMP that responding to the complaints against them “as soon as feasible” (as vaguely required by law) means within six months, absent exceptional circumstances.

In February 2022, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) published a joint review which found that the RCMP violated national security disclosure rules, potentially placing thousands of individuals at risk. 

In October 2022, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) tabled in the House of Commons a report entitled Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence (FRT report) supported by all members. Several of the ICLMG’s recommendations submitted to the committee were reflected in its report.

In November 2022, the ETHI committee published a report called Device Investigative Tools Used By The Royal Canadian Mounted Police And Related Issues (Spyware report) supported by all members. The committee study was launched after it was revealed in June 2022 that the RCMP had admitted to using spyware for covert surveillance. The report said Canada should update its privacy laws, make a list of banned spyware vendors and grant the OPC powers to issue orders in both the public and private sectors when it finds violations of the laws for which it is responsible. Most committee members also denounced the lack of cooperation of the RCMP during the study, including its refusal to reveal what type of spyware it uses. Despite all this, the report did not recommend a moratorium on the use of spyware by police, simply treating it as the new normal, and was rightly criticized for it.

The RCMP has also used surveillance technology without the approval or knowledge of superiors, the Public Safety Minister and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. In February 2024, the OPC investigated these revelations and found that stronger measures to protect privacy were needed. The RCMP refused to implement the OPC recommendations including that it ceases collecting personal information via Babel X from sources that require logins or authentication to access. 

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
  • 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.
Greens
  • 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.
Bloc
  • 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.

Terrorist Entities List

Since the 2021 election, several groups have been added to Canada’s terrorist entities list: the Palestinian prisoners’ advocacy group Samidoun, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Yemen’s Houthis (or Ansarallah), and seven criminal organizations from Latin America. 

These additions have been criticized for being political, violating free expression and due process rights, most likely hindering the delivery of aid to starving populations, and stretching the definition of terrorism.

ICLMG has had the same position since our creation: the terrorist entities list is a racist, political, arbitrary and rights-violating instrument, and must be abolished.

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

Torture

Abousfian Abdelrazik was unjustly imprisoned, and tortured in Sudan, while the Canadian government blocked his attempts to return home until the Federal Court ordered his return in a decision harshly criticizing the actions of CSIS and the government. He launched a lawsuit against the Canadian government in 2009 for its role in the injustice he suffered. Lawyer Paul Champ argued in court in 2024 and 2025 that federal officials contributed to the grave breaches of fundamental human rights that Abdelrazik suffered over a period of six years.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who was held at the Guantanamo Bat prison for 14 years, filed a lawsuit in 2022 seeking damages over Canada’s alleged role in his imprisonment and torture at Guantanamo, where he says he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation, sexual assault and death threats. His statement of claim states that he was tortured based on information derived from Canadian authorities: “For example, his interrogators pressed him about a phone call in Montreal in which Slahi invited someone for tea and asked him to bring sugar. His interrogators insisted the request for ‘sugar’ was code for ‘explosives.’ This made no sense to Slahi and was entirely untrue.”

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
Greens
  • Unknown position
Bloc
  • The BQ has refused to say if they support an investigation into Slahi’s allegations.
  • Nothing new since the 2021 election.

Weapons and Arms Trade

Purchase of armed drones and fighter jets both for international extrajudicial executions and domestic surveillance, as well as the sale of weapons to countries despite a bad human rights record – in the name of national security – are deeply concerning.

Liberals
  • 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.
CPC
  • 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.
NDP
Greens
Bloc

 

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button