CILA notes with dismay that that Bill C-12 (the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act) has been given royal assent. While border security is essential to the safety of Canadians, the changes the Act has made to our immigration system raise major concerns.
The fairness that was once a hallmark of Canada’s immigration system has been eroded. 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. This new law changes that for many people.
Now the federal government will have the power to cancel immigration documents or stop applications whenever it deems it to be in the “public interest.” However, “public interest” remains undefined in the Act, 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.
What is more, the Act will reduce the number of refugee claimants who are entitled to an in-person hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) where they can explain their claim directly to a decisionmaker—greatly increasing their chances of being sent home to face persecution. 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 would have their claim assessed on paper by an immigration officer. No talking, no explaining, no face-to-face interaction and very little chance to appeal if the officer gets it wrong. The Act will not reduce the volume of refugee claims. It will just shift the flow from having a robust hearing in front of a refugee judge to a non hearing decided by an immigration officer. It is a solution in search of a problem.
There are also no exceptions allowed to these new rules. What if someone’s home country was safe when they left, but a war started while they were in Canada? What if someone was too traumatized or scared to speak up right away? What if someone has good reasons to fear they will be apprehended by ICE if they make an asylum claim in the US? Under the new Act, it wouldn’t matter. Such claimants will not get an in-person hearing and will have limited appeal rights.
Furthermore, the new law applies retroactively, which is contrary to basic rules of fair play.
Over 300 civil society groups expressed opposition to the Act, including the UNHCR, citing concerns regarding human rights, privacy, and executive overreach, yet it passed anyway.
This new law should raise red flags for all Canadians. 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.
Improving the integrity of Canada’s border and immigration system is necessary—but it must be done in a way that upholds the rule of law, democratic principles, international obligations, procedural fairness, and the safeguards that protect vulnerable people.
Read more:
