Advocacy groups are urging the federal government to scrap the border security bill, citing concerns over potential violations of migrants’ rights. The groups, including the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees, gathered on Parliament Hill for a news conference after being excluded from the witness lists for Commons committees reviewing Bill C-12.
Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, criticized the limited scrutiny given to the 70-page bill, which encompasses changes to nine pieces of legislation. She highlighted the lack of input from migrants who could be adversely affected by the proposed measures, such as permit cancellations and denial of refugee protection.
The contentious provisions in Bill C-12 were initially part of the government’s border security bill C-2 introduced in June. However, the government reintroduced some aspects in separate legislation in October to expedite the legislative process. One key element of C-12 is a provision that would prevent individuals from filing refugee applications with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada if they have been in the country for over a year.
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director at the Canadian Council for Refugees, raised concerns about how the one-year rule could hinder individuals from seeking asylum due to evolving circumstances in their home countries. She emphasized the challenges faced by vulnerable groups, such as victims of domestic violence, in meeting the tight timeline for making a claim.
The government has defended the legislation, asserting that individuals ineligible for regular refugee hearings can still undergo pre-removal risk assessments. Immigration Department officials explained to the House of Commons immigration committee that these assessments serve a similar purpose as hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Additionally, Bill C-12 grants the government the authority to halt new immigration applications or revoke existing ones in the “public interest.” Immigration Minister Lena Diab justified the broad interpretation of “public interest” as necessary to address diverse future scenarios, including public health crises or security threats.
The bill is currently under review by House of Commons immigration and national security committees, with a clause-by-clause examination scheduled during the national security committee hearing. Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner intends to propose amendments, including restricting refugee applications from individuals arriving from European or G7 nations.
Karen Cocq criticized Rempel Garner’s amendments, likening them to a previous law enacted under the Harper government in 2012 that denied refugees from “safe countries” the right to appeal. She emphasized the importance of upholding fairness in the refugee system and criticized the notion of blanket bans on specific groups of people.
