Advocacy organizations are criticizing the federal government’s border security legislation, labeling it as a threat to migrant rights and calling for its abandonment. In a news conference held at Parliament Hill, representatives from the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and other groups expressed concerns over the lack of migrant input in the review process of Bill C-12.
Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, highlighted the extensive scope of Bill C-12, which spans 70 pages and proposes changes to nine existing laws. Despite its complexity, the bill has only received three weeks of examination, with no opportunity for impacted migrants to address the committee.
Originally part of the broader border security bill C-2 introduced in June, certain provisions of the legislation were reintroduced in Bill C-12 in October for expedited approval. Notable aspects of C-12 include restrictions on refugee applications for individuals residing in Canada for over a year and granting the government authority to halt new immigration applications or revoke existing ones in the “public interest.”
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director at the Canadian Council for Refugees, expressed concerns about the potential limitations the one-year rule could impose on asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing rapidly changing circumstances in their home countries. Additionally, the bill’s provision for mass cancellation of visas to deter fraud has raised questions about its broad interpretation of the “public interest” concept.
Immigration Minister Lena Diab defended the legislation, emphasizing that individuals ineligible for standard refugee hearings could still undergo pre-removal risk assessments. The government argues that these assessments offer comparable scrutiny and review processes as those conducted by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The bill is currently under review by House of Commons committees and is scheduled for detailed consideration at an upcoming national security committee hearing. Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner plans to propose amendments, including a restriction on refugee applications from individuals originating from European or G7 nations.
Critics, including Karen Cocq, argue that such amendments harken back to previous laws that denied certain groups of refugees fundamental appeal rights, a practice deemed unconstitutional in the past. Cocq emphasized the importance of upholding principles of fairness and non-discrimination in the immigration system.
