Bill C-2 would tighten Canada’s immigration and asylum system, barring people who arrived in the country more than a year ago from having an asylum claim heard.GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images
A federal crackdown on asylum claims would create a new “in limbo” class of foreign residents who couldn’t be returned home but who would be barred from asylum hearings and unable to work in Canada, refugee groups say.
They are warning government officials that the Strong Borders Act, which was introduced before MPs went on summer break, would lead to people living without status in Canada if their home countries are deemed too dangerous for them to be returned to.
The legislation, also known as Bill C-2, would tighten up Canada’s immigration and asylum system, barring people who arrived in Canada more than a year ago from having an asylum claim heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Applicants to the IRB can qualify for work permits and health coverage while they wait for assessments.
The restriction would apply to people who entered the country after June 24, 2020, even if they have since left and returned.
Bill C-2 would also prevent people who crossed the U.S. border illegally from claiming asylum if they have been in Canada for at least 14 days, which is currently permitted under a provision of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.
Minister steering federal border bill consults Ethics Commissioner to rule out conflict of interest
Strong Borders Act could clash with Charter rights, Justice Department says
Most people denied the right to claim asylum would be put on a track toward deportation under changes proposed in the bill. But Canada has suspended deportations of people from a list of conflict-riven countries, including Haiti, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Burundi, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said the changes in the bill would mean huge numbers of people from conflict zones would be unable to access asylum hearings at the IRB.
Ms. Sreenivasan said she had warned Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials in a briefing about the bill that it could create a class of Canadian residents who cannot have their cases heard.
“We raised this issue with IRCC at a technical briefing for those who are ineligible to access the IRB. How do they access a process that could generate status for them?” she said. “We are concerned that they’ll be left in a kind of permanent limbo.”
Matthew Krupovich, a spokesperson for IRCC, said the department had been made aware of the implications of Bill C-2 for people who cannot be removed and cannot access an IRB hearing.
“IRCC understands that some people, regardless of whether they qualify for a referral to the IRB, cannot be removed from Canada. This is because the Government of Canada temporarily stops removals to certain countries due to ongoing conflicts or other risks,” he said in an e-mail.
“For those who are currently affected by these policies, anyone found ineligible for a referral to the IRB under the Strong Borders Act may still stay in Canada until conditions in their home country improve. They will also have the chance to undergo a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) before any removal takes place.”
A PRRA is a formal assessment by an IRCC official that looks at risk of persecution, danger of torture and risk to life. People whose PRRA applications are accepted by the government can in most cases apply for permanent residence in Canada.
But Ms. Sreenivasan said the class of people from countries to which Canada does not send people back would likely not qualify for PRRAs, as they are not facing deportation.
And she noted that a PRRA can be a much more difficult path to resettlement than an IRB hearing.
Under a PRRA, the risk an applicant faces would be assessed by an IRCC official by looking at submitted paperwork, usually without an in-person interview.
PRRA hearings have far lower acceptance rates than IRB hearings, where around 60 per cent of applicants are granted refugee status, according to Syed Hussan, a spokesperson for Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, a migrants’ advocacy group.
And unlike those making refugee claims with the IRB, those receiving PRRAs would not be eligible for work permits or federal health care coverage while their claims are being assessed.
“They could be stuck living without status, which then means that they can’t have access to a work permit. They can’t find ways to contribute and participate in dignity, but could very easily be eligible for protection,” Ms. Sreenivasan said, adding that many have valid asylum claims.
She also raised concerns that the bar against people having their cases heard by the IRB if they came to Canada more than a year ago – even if their last visit was as a child – would prevent many eligible applicants from making claims.
IRCC’s Mr. Krupovich said the one-year rule “will help avoid bottlenecks and allow the IRB to continue to address new claims as well as the significant inventory of pending claims.”
Karen Cocq, of the advocacy group Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, expressed concern that the one-year asylum restriction the bill proposes is more stringent than a parallel restriction in the U.S., which dates back to an asylum seeker’s most recent visit to that country.
Advocates for migrants to Canada have warned that the cut-off could disqualify people who came here on holiday, to study or for work.
Ms. Sreenivasan said an academic or journalist who came here to give a lecture years ago, and subsequently fell afoul of an authoritarian regime, would be barred from an asylum hearing in Canada under the new rules.