A law restricting access to asylum hearings for foreign nationals who have been in Canada for more than a year has received royal assent, amid warnings that genuine refugee claimants could be returned to their home countries and predictions of a surge in federal-court challenges.
Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab last month said the changes in the government’s immigration and border bill, also known as Bill C-12, were designed in part to tackle an increasing misuse of Canada’s asylum system.
Under the new law, people who make an asylum claim after living in Canada for more than a year, including international students, would be fast-tracked for deportation.
They would no longer be eligible for an asylum hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board, the independent tribunal that hears refugee claims. But they would be able to ask for a risk assessment to be carried out by an immigration department official before deportation.
Canada has seen an increase in asylum claims from international students, who have been the target of immigration restrictions, in the past few years, including by those who are facing deportation because their study permits to stay in Canada are running out. Over the past year, 17 per cent of asylum claims came from students, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The law also gives the federal government the power to cancel, vary or suspend en masse immigration documents, including visas.
Ms. Metlege Diab has said that the new power would help the department tackle fraud. But the measure was criticized in the Commons and Senate and by advocates who expressed concern that it could suddenly and unexpectedly deprive people of their ability to come to Canada or live here.
The law would also allow the federal government to share immigration details with provinces, including details about naturalized Canadian citizens born abroad and permanent residents.
And it allows provincial and territorial governments to share IRCC’s client information with foreign entities, with the written consent of the department.
A Senate amendment to restrict the information-sharing powers, so that details of foreign-born Canadians and permanent residents cannot be given to provinces, territories or foreign entities was not accepted by the government.
Opinion: The PQ’s promise of a Denmark-like crackdown on immigration could be a vote-getter
Karen Kocq of the Migrants Rights Network, said Friday in a statement that the “legislation was about scapegoating migrants in order to shore up this government’s political fortunes.”
“The government tried to shut down criticism of this law, and yet a broad front of civil-society organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians spoke out against it and remain committed to fighting back against this government’s xenophobia, protecting our communities, and ensuring that migrants get the equality and justice they deserve,” she said.
Tim McSorley, national co-ordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, said “the Senate social affairs committee got it right when they recommended that all immigration measures in this legislation be removed.”
But Senator Tony Dean, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said “C-12 is in part an effort to bring some rigour into Canada’s asylum system to make sure it is responsive to people who need it most.”
“I have no doubt that a large majority of Canadians and Indigenous peoples in Canada would support this,” he said in an e-mail.
Opinion: Time to plan for the return of sane immigration
The Canadian Bar Association warned on Friday that the new immigration act would increase litigation, and therefore strain on the Federal Court.
The association’s immigration law section said the way the new law is implemented must comply with the Charter of Rights and Canada’s international obligations.
In a statement, it expressed concern that the act will “erode access to oral hearings for vulnerable asylum claimants, allow mass cancellation of entire categories of visas and applications on vague ‘public interest’ grounds, and shift decision-making away from independent, expert tribunals.”