Authored by the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association
Border security is essential to the safety of Canadians and integrity of our immigration system. It has taken on even greater importance amid ongoing developments in the Canada-U.S. trading relationship.
However, the federal government’s Bill C-12 should raise major concerns among all Canadians.
Canada has a reputation for treating immigrants and refugees fairly. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that refugee claimants deserve a chance to make their case in person before being sent away. Likewise, courts have also ruled that would-be immigrants, workers, visitors and students are entitled to procedural fairness in the processing of their applications.
But a new piece of legislation, Bill C-12, is threatening to change that. While the federal government says it’s just trying to make the system faster and more secure, many Canadians are worried we are cutting corners on human rights and the Constitution.
Right now, refugee claimants usually get an in-person hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) where they can explain their claim directly to a decisionmaker. Bill C-12 threatens to change that for many people.
Instead of an in-person hearing, refugees who have waited more than a year to claim asylum or those who have entered Canada from the U.S. by irregular means (due to concerns they will not be treated fairly and humanely by the Trump administration) would have their claim assessed on paper by an immigration officer. No talking, no explaining, and very little chance to appeal if the officer gets it wrong, which would risk putting their lives in danger.
The bill also adds a strict “one-year rule” for asylum claims. If you have been in Canada for more than a year and then try to apply for refugee status, you are out of luck—no in-person hearing, just the on-paper risk assessment by someone who has never met you, seen you or heard you speak.
This sounds like simple common sense, but life isn’t always simple. What if your home country was safe when you left, but a war started while you were here? Or what if you were too traumatized or scared to speak up right away? Under Bill C-12, it wouldn’t matter. You would not get an in-person hearing and you would have limited appeal rights.
In addition, Bill C-12 changes the law retroactively. Imagine a referee changing the rules of the game after the puck has dropped. The bill would allow the federal government to have the power to cancel immigration documents or stop applications whenever they deem it to be in the “public interest.”
The problem? Bill C-12 doesn’t actually define what “public interest” means, opening the door to arbitrary actions by the government. Students and skilled workers could see their permits cancelled without explanation. Would-be immigrants could be told their applications have been cancelled after they have spent years waiting in line legally. This would hurt the credibility of the immigration system and also unfairly penalize applicants who are following the rules.
Not only is the bill itself undemocratic, but so too is the process to enact it.
Ottawa is charging forward with the bill despite over 300 civil society groups expressing opposition. Recently, the Senate’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI) published a report calling for removal of the bill’s most controversial immigration and asylum proposals.
Yet, in spite of the Committee citing concerns regarding human rights, privacy, and executive overreach, Ottawa is close to implementing the bill into law without amendments.
Why should Canadian citizens care about this?
We should care because our legal system is like a shield. If we let the government poke holes in that shield for one group of people, the whole shield becomes weaker for everyone. This becomes a slippery slope whereby the federal government could feel emboldened to also infringe on civil liberties and constitutional rights through other means.
We cannot allow the government to trade fairness for convenience. If we stop giving people their “day in court” and start making life-and-death decisions based on paperwork alone, we aren’t just changing a law—we are losing the very fairness that makes Canada what it is.
Improving the integrity of Canada’s immigration system is necessary—but it must be done in a way that upholds the rule of law, procedural fairness, and the safeguards that protect vulnerable people.
