Canada’s recent legislative development, Bill C-12, known as the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, has become law following royal assent. This comes amid fierce criticism from 28 domestic and international refugee and migrant rights groups, who labeled the bill a direct attack on refugee and migrant rights. Among the organizations voicing their dissent were the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and Amnesty International Canada (JURIST).
Originally introduced as Bill C-2, the legislation has undergone modifications and is widely seen as a response to pressure from the United States. It draws parallels to measures adopted in the U.S. following accusations from President Donald Trump regarding Canada’s border management. Trump had threatened tariffs unless Canada tightened its immigration policies.
Critics argue that Bill C-12 poses significant threats to the rights of refugees and migrants. One particularly contentious provision is paragraph 76, which imposes restrictions on who can apply for refugee status based on their time of arrival in Canada. Applicants who have been in the country for more than a year are not eligible to apply to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) and are instead subject to a pre-removal risk assessment. This move could prevent individuals from seeking adequate protection, leading to increased risk of persecution and violence.
The modifications that advocacy groups pushed for—intended to safeguard the rights of migrants—are said to be reflected only minimally in the final version of the bill. Furthermore, it is part of a broader strategy by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to limit overall immigration, as evidenced by revisions to the Immigration Levels Plan, which reduces the total number of migrants permitted entry into Canada.
The UN Human Rights Committee also weighed in, warning that the legislation could infringe on a range of human rights. The concept of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. was highlighted as potentially detrimental to asylum seekers, signaling broader implications for refugee protection.
These developments stem from sustained criticism not only from refugee and migrant advocacy groups but also from over 300 organizations including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Migrant Rights Network. Their joint efforts sought to emphasize the expansive negative consequences that could arise from this legislative path.