Ottawa’s strong borders bill could infringe on Charter and privacy rights, parliamentary study warns

2025/08/28 Leave a comment

Reinforces court challenges:

….The library received requests from MPs for an analysis of Bill C-2 and has made available a preliminary version of its research to help them and others understand the bill. 

Its findings follow similar warnings from lawyers and civil-liberties experts. They have predicted that, if passed, the bill could face legal challenges. Refugee advocates and migrant groups have criticized Bill C-2’s proposed changes to immigration and asylum law. 

The Library of Parliament’s in-depth look at the bill raises particular concerns about so-called lawful access provisions to give police, Canada’s spy agency and other public officers warrantless powers to demand information.

The bill would allow law-enforcement officers without warrants to demand information on whether people have used various services, such as internet providers, medical services, hotels, mailboxes or banks….

An assessment earlier this year by the federal Justice Department found that various provisions in Bill C-2 clash with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including clauses protecting Canadians against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

The Library of Parliament found that, as well as potentially clashing with the Charter, the bill may be framed to “circumvent” decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that confirm the right to privacy online. 

It warns that the bill’s “expanded surveillance and data-sharing powers from law enforcement and other government agencies could potentially lead to discriminatory profiling or targeting, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.” 

“Enhanced authority for law enforcement to access internet subscriber data without a warrant, as well as data-sharing between Canadian and foreign authorities allowed under Bill C-2, could disproportionately affect racialized and immigrant communities,” it says. 

It also raises concerns about measures to help the police and intelligence services get access to data. The CCLA warns the measures could force online services to redesign how they operate. …

Source: Ottawa’s strong borders bill could infringe on Charter and privacy rights, parliamentary study warns

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

2025/08/20 Leave a comment

Valid concern but how to have an exception from the general rule with a definition and process that separates significant dissidents from some who make claim but have less legitimate fears:

Dissidents, human-rights activists and journalists being persecuted by foreign regimes could find themselves unable to get asylum hearings in Canada under planned immigration changes, refugee experts warn. 

They are calling on the federal government to create an exception in Bill C-2, the Strong Borders bill, so dissidents can find safe haven here. 

As it is currently worded, the bill would exclude dissidents and others from hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board if they came to Canada more than a year before their claim.

Many – including political opponents of authoritarian regimes – may have visited Canada to attend meetings, speak at summits or give lectures, the experts warn. 

Bill C-2, which is going through its parliamentary stages, aims to tighten up immigration rules and is likely to cut the total number of asylum claims. It would put people who have been in Canada for more than a year on a fast track to deportation. 

The bill specifies that the one-year period “begins on the day after the day of their first entry.” 

Lawyers said a “first entry” would include any previous visit to Canada, including a holiday here. 

“Unlike the U.S. approach, where the one-year rule generally applies based on the most recent entry and includes exceptions, the Canadian version is broader and more rigid,” immigration lawyer Warda Shazadi Meighen of Toronto law firm Landings LLP said in an e-mail.

“This has troubling implications. It would apply to individuals who came to Canada years ago for reasons entirely unrelated to their current need for protection – as children on holiday, students, guest speakers or attendees at international conferences. 

“These are often the same people – foreign dissidents, human rights advocates, journalists and LGBTQ+ individuals – who later flee genuine and escalating persecution from authoritarian regimes. Their prior, often innocent, engagement with Canada could now preclude them from seeking asylum here.”

Ms. Shazadi Meighen urged the government to create “a clear carve-out for dissidents and others fleeing political violence or state persecution, or at minimum a discretionary mechanism with procedural safeguards for those who fall outside the one-year window due to past presence but now face genuine risk.” 

Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, called the one-year bar being proposed in Bill C-2 “a dangerous step that actually undermines safety for many in Canada.”

“For example, those that travelled to Canada as children, or someone that came to Canada previously as a renowned journalist, academic or human-rights defender to share their expertise and is later under threat in their country for this very reason could be arbitrarily denied access to safety due to their earlier visit; it defies logic,” she said. “There should be no time limit on the right to seek protection in or at our borders.”

Fen Osler Hampson, president of the World Refugee and Migration Council, said the wording of the bill’s clauses on asylum could have far-reaching, unintended consequences.

“In legislative drafting, every word and comma counts and the government should scrutinize every word, sentence and paragraph in new legislation carefully, not just in terms of their intended consequence and professed objectives, but also their potentially unintended consequences, which, in this particular instance, are profound and unintentionally discriminatory,” Mr. Osler Hampson, who is also professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said in an e-mail. 

Source: Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,

Border bill would create ‘in limbo’ foreign residents, refugee groups say 

2025/07/12 Leave a comment

Usual critique by advocates, with no analysis of numbers likely to be affected or recognition of previous abuses:

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….

Source: Border bill would create ‘in limbo’ foreign residents, refugee groups say

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Carney government clarifies Canadian border bill’s asylum changes as critics call for complete withdrawal

2025/06/20 Leave a comment

Useful clarification on information sharing although it will not assuage all concerns:

…In a new notice posted on its website, Canada’s Immigration Department tried to offer some clarity to Bill C-2 to address critics’ concerns.

It said the proposed rules on asylum eligibility would only apply to refugee claims made on or after June 3, 2025, by anyone who first arrived in Canada after June 24, 2020, and wouldn’t be retroactive to those who already had a claim in the system before Bill C-2 was tabled.

Officials said the changes to immigration information sharing are limited to federal and provincial governments, and do not concern information-sharing activities with the U.S. It’s for the domestic purposes of confirming identities, detecting frauds, and carrying out law and border enforcement activities and investigations. The notice also listed public interest grounds that would potentially prompt immigration officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents.

“The government is committed to rebuilding Canadians’ trust in the immigration system,” the Immigration Department told the Star in an email.

“We’re improving security at the Canada-U.S. border and making our immigration and asylum systems more resilient and more responsive to new and developing pressures. To make things clear: The measures announced in Bill C-2 are about protecting the integrity of our system while building a safer and more equitable Canada.”

Source: Carney government clarifies Canadian border bill’s asylum changes as critics call for complete withdrawal

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Early tests for Minister Diab:

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending controversial new measures in the Strong Borders Act, such as giving her office the power to cancel immigration documents en masse and placing time limits for asylum seekers to make their applications.

“There’s a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada,” Diab told CBC News.

“We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone.”

Introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, is meant to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen the border and keep Canadians safe, according to the federal government.

The bill would make dozens of amendments to existing laws. Its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would force asylum seekers entering the country, including students and temporary residents, to make claims within a year.

The new law would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

And it would speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

Groups such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are raising concerns about these measures. 

“There are a few categories of people who may end up making a claim after they’ve been in Canada for more than one year for fully legitimate reasons,” said Adam Sadinsky, the group’s advocacy co-chair. 

He cited examples such as changes in government in someone’s country of origin, the breakout of conflict or their human rights advocacy in Canada placing a target on them. 

“They may now be in danger returning back home in a way that they weren’t when they first arrived,” he said. 

Federal government data shows some 39,445 asylum claimants processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency between January and April.

Sadinsky said if the government’s motivations are about clearing backlogs, it may be creating another problem. 

Asylum seekers who find their application rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can file appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. However, shutting them out of the asylum route after a year could make them turn to the Federal Court of Canada for recourse instead, a body that has been public about its own courtrooms facing severe delays with immigration cases.

“It’s a lot more work for the court,” Sadinsky said, “when people start getting removal dates from Canada and they have to ask the court for motions for stays of removal from Canada.” 

Sadinsky suggested the government could have reduced backlogs by issuing blanket approvals for would-be asylum seekers from countries where Canada recognizes there is an imminent danger to sending them back, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will ‘keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering,’ as well as ‘enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.’ 

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government needed to act, though he recognized courts are facing efficiency problems.

“We need to be able to do two things at once,” he said about changing the asylum system and reducing court backlogs.

Reached for comment, the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court said in a statement it would “simply hope that any potential impact on the court’s workload would be taken into account,” citing a previous amendment to immigration law under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2010 that included four new court positions.

Mass cancellation powers

The Migrant Rights Network, an advocacy group, said it is alarmed about the government giving itself the ability to cancel previously issued immigration documents in large groups. 

“What this is, is setting up of a mass deportation machine,” said its spokesperson Syed Hussan. “Just go out and say we’re walking away from the Geneva Convention.” 

Diab said any mass cancellation decisions would be taken by the whole cabinet, not just her office, and they would not be done lightly.

“These are in exceptional circumstances, when you’re talking about mass cancellation or suspension,” she said. 

“For example, when COVID happened, we literally had applications coming in, and the system had no authority to suspend or cancel those applications … we could have health risks again. We could have security risks.” 

Bill C-2 is now moving through Parliament. The legislation would normally be studied by parliamentary committee next, though neither Diab nor Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, could say which committee would pick it up.

Committees have not been named yet for this sitting and it is unclear if they will before Parliament wraps up for the summer at the end of June.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it intends to write a letter outlining its concerns to the federal government, and would hope to present at committee when the moment arrives.

Source: Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , ,

Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Another commentary arguing C-2 asylum provisions are reasonable:

…This sure looks like an attempt to leverage Trumpian mayhem for the same purposes. It will and should be fought on those grounds.

It’s especially unfortunate because Bill C-2 also proposes to inject some relatively hardhearted sanity into our perennially out-of-control refugee system — changes that by rights would be debated on their own, without invoking Donald Trump’s name every 30 seconds, because these problems are not at all of the president’s making. For example, Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline for being in Canada, after which you won’t be able to apply for asylum, which is a clear response to the number of temporary residents trying to hang on in Canada using the refugee system. And it proposes expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement such that anyone crossing illegally from the U.S. would be ineligible to claim asylum, no matter how long they lie low upon arrival.

These are reasonable measures, completely in keeping with countries with far better human-rights records than Canada’s. Someone doesn’t just suddenly remember being persecuted after a year of not mentioning it. The principle of seeking asylum in the first technically safe country you arrive in may be unrealistic: no one willing to risk their lives for a better life in the United States or Canada is likely to settle on Mexico, considering the ordeals most refugees from Central America have already been through. But when a country like Canada accepts hundreds of refugee claims a year from the U.S and Europe, you know things have been taken to an extreme….

…Refugee advocates will argue, reasonably enough, that the solution for a self-styled humanitarian beacon like Canada would be to devote enough resources to the refugee-determination system such that we could adjudicate them quickly and efficiently. But no government ever, ever does that. We have a backlog of 280,825 asylum claims — roughly 0.7 per cent of the Canadian population.

Something has to give. And that something has absolutely nothing to do with Canadians’ IP addresses.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Barutciski: The tightening of Canada’s asylum laws was an inevitability

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Indeed, and overdue:

…This is a reasonable response that partially harmonizes the Canadian system with the U.S. system. As controversial as this may seem to some, harmonization is the only way Western countries such as Canada will be able to bring migration under control. 

Democratic governments are continuing to bleed support because they are unable to assuage populations that are justifiably anxious about uncontrolled migration; the Netherlands is just the latest example. 

Whether the asylum-related provisions in Bill C-2 become the law of the land will ultimately show how serious the new Liberal government is in correcting immigration policy mistakes made by and acknowledged by the previous prime minister and then-immigration minister.

Yet it is one thing to amend laws to restore Canada’s seriousness on the immigration file; it is another to actually enforce them. If Ottawa cannot incentivize the large population of overstayers to leave by themselves, it will need to enforce its own laws, potentially with large-scale removals of foreigners who are unlawfully present in Canada. 

The government could propose a humane yet realistic carrot-and-stick approach involving financial aid to help migrants return home combined with future eligibility for legal residence if they do return.

Even assuming the government can resolve this dilemma, it will then have to propose new amendments to address the unmanageable backlogs that remain for the country’s largest administrative tribunal. 

Indeed, the gravity of the challenge is illustrated by the fact that the IRB had already seen both its operating budget and number of employees more than double between 2015 and 2023. 

Deep reform of Canada’s asylum law will have to come sooner rather than later. Bill C-2 is a solid start.

Source: The tightening of Canada’s asylum laws was an inevitability

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

2025/06/05 1 Comment

Predictable criticism from refugee and immigration advocates who invariably either cannot ackowledge abuses of the system or come up with possible measures to deal with the same, beyond calling for more resources.

One nugget that should improve processing and service for citizenship is:

“Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications).”

My sense is that the immigration and asylum provisions will likely be supported by the Conservative opposition but there will likely be tensions within the Liberal caucus:

…The bill was immediately met with concerns about privacy, refugee rights and its omnibus aspect.

NDP MP Jenny Kwan said the bill should be “alarming” to Canadians and risks breaching their civil liberties, particularly for its changes on immigration.

“They are trying to create this illusion that Canada’s border is more secure in some way, but however, a lot of the components within the bill targets Canada’s own immigration policies and processes that has nothing to do with the United States,” she said, questioning why there were no measures specifically targeting illegal guns coming from the U.S., for example.

“There are lots of pieces that I think should be concerning to Canadians.”

Anandasangaree, a former human rights lawyer, defended seeking those new powers Tuesday.

“I worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberties. That’s a marquee part of the work that I’ve done before politics, in politics,” he told reporters.

“In order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I fundamentally believe that we have striked the balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.”

Those safeguards include not allowing information on immigration to be shared with other countries unless permitted by the minister, as well as judicial oversight that would require a warrant except in “exigent” circumstances. 

The proposed legislation, which will require the support of another party to pass in the minority Parliament, is meant to address the surge of asylum-seekers and the ballooning backlogs in refugee applications. Anyone who first arrived Canada after June 24, 2020 would not be allowed to make a refugee claim after one year, regardless of whether they left the country and returned; irregular migrants who enter Canada from the U.S. between land ports of entry would also be denied the rights to asylum.

“They’re coming up with all of these various ways to basically turn the tap off, to actually make it a more restrictive process,” said Queen’s University immigration and refugee law professor Sharry Aiken.

“That will harm vulnerable people and deny some groups of claimants their right to accessing a fair hearing” by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, Aiken said.

Canada has seen the number of asylum-seekers triple in less than a decade, from 50,365 in 2017 to 171,845 last year. As of April, the refugee tribunal has 284,715 claims awaiting a decision.

More international students, visitors and foreign workers are seeking asylum to prolong their stays in Canada after Ottawa clamped down on the runaway growth of temporary residents and reduced permanent resident admissions amid concerns of the housing and affordability crisis.

The Canadian Council for Refugees said the proposed asylum changes mirror the American approach, where borders are militarized and securitized as refugees and migrants are viewed as a security threat.

“Under international law, there is no time frame on the right to seek protection. Where we do find this precedent is in the U.S.,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, the council’s co-executive director.

Anandasangaree said those who are affected by proposed ineligibility rules for asylum could ask for an assessment by immigration officials to ensure they would not face harm if sent back to their country.

However, critics said that process is less robust than a full hearing by the refugee board, and this would simply pass the administrative burden to the already strained Immigration Department and the Federal Court.

“It could force many people who have no choice because they are under threat in their country or in the U.S. to live underground without status,” Sreenivasan warned.

Source: Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

And Althia Raj questions who pressed for these changes (likely under development for some time by IRCC officials given the numbers and abuses):

….Those who work with refugees are also alarmed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first piece of legislation pulls away the welcome mat for asylum seekers. It makes it nearly impossible for those who have been in Canada for more than a year, either as students, permanent residents, or temporary workers, and those who’ve snuck into Canada between land border crossings and have been here for more than two weeks, from having their asylum cases heard.

“A lot of people are going to get rejected because they’re not going to have an opportunity to explain for themselves why they would be in danger when they go back (home),” said Adam Sadinsky, an immigration and refugee lawyer with Silcoff Shacter in Toronto.

On Parliament Hill, the NDP’s Jenny Kwan described the law as “violating people’s due process and taking away people’s basic rights,” and also noted that it will drive people underground.

A problem that could be fixed by beefing up the immigration system — staffing and resources — will instead encourage those who are in Canada, and fear being deported to their home country, to stay here illegally. It will make it much more difficult for federal, provincial and municipal authorities to know who is living here, where they are, and what services they need. And it may simply move staffing and resource pressures away from the Immigration and Refugee Board toward the federal court, who will now hear more requests for stays to remain in Canada and for judicial review of unfavourable decisions.

On CBC, Anandasangaree said his “comprehensive bill” was directly linked with what is happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it also “responds to … the mandate (Canadians) gave us on April the 28th.”

Does it? Are these the values that Canadians voted to uphold?…

Source: Opinion | Border bill primed to give Mark Carney’s government sweeping new powers. Who asked for this?

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,