Photo credit: CBC
The federal government security bill is an open door to violating the rights of migrants and should be rescinded, advocate groups said on Monday on Parliament Hill.
CBC News reports that representatives of the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees and other groups held a news conference on Parliament Hill after failing to get on the witness lists for Commons committees studying Bill C-12.
The measures in Bill C-12 were part of the government’s original border security bill C-2, which was introduced in June.
In October, the government reintroduced some parts of the original bill in separate legislation with the hopes of passing it faster than C-2, which includes controversial proposals to give security and intelligence services new powers and allow Canada Post to open mail.
C-12 includes a host of immigration and asylum measures, including one that would bar individuals from filing refugee applications with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada if they’ve been in Canada for more than a year.
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director at the Canadian Council for Refugees, said that the restriction could limit individuals’ ability to claim asylum based on changing conditions in their home countries. He said people fleeing domestic violence may also struggle with the proposed one-year rule, as it can be hard to assemble evidence, find a lawyer and make a claim within that time frame.
However, the government defended the measure, saying people ineligible for regular refugee hearings are still eligible for pre-removal risk assessments. Immigration department officials have told the House of Commons immigration committee that these hearings pose similar questions and review the same evidence as hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
C-12 would also give the government the power to stop accepting new immigration applications or cancel existing applications when it decides it’s not in the “public interest.”
Immigration Minister Lena Diab and department officials have stated that the term “public interest” is intentionally kept vague in the legislation to give the government leeway to approach a range of future situations, such as pandemics or espionage threats.
The bill is being reviewed by the House of Commons immigration and national security committees and goes up for clause-by-clause consideration at Tuesday’s national security committee hearing.
