Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to talk about this important piece of legislation, Bill C‑12. Regrettably, while I am the third NDP member to have an opportunity to rise in the House, it is because the Liberals do not rise to talk about their own piece of legislation because they do not want to talk about it.
This is good for us because it gives me an opportunity to be able to talk about it on behalf of the constituents of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie as well as several representatives of civil society organizations who are very concerned about the impacts of this piece of legislation on asylum seekers and refugees. I will be discussing this during my speech, but first allow me to provide some background.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave an important pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa. What we saw was a Liberal Prime Minister who, in Canada, takes a very strong Canadian nationalist, protectionist, elbows up line. He talks about defending our sovereignty, our jobs and our companies. However, when the Prime Minister is in the Oval Office in Washington, he completely changes tack. He no longer demonstrates the same strength, the same character, the same determination. He seems to be kowtowing, pandering. The Prime Minister seems to be doing everything he can to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. He is doing everything he can to make him happy. As we have seen on several occasions, despite the Prime Minister's tough talk when in Canada, nothing ever happens.
The current Prime Minister was elected largely because of his platform to stand against U.S. President Donald Trump. Instead, he keeps backing down and making overtures to please the American president. Why is the Prime Minister suddenly trying to revive the Keystone XL pipeline? After promising to make web giants, GAFAM, pay their fair share, why is the Prime Minister now backtracking just because the American president does not really like the idea of taxes being imposed on these big corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits at Canadians' expense? The Prime Minister is not standing up. He does not have his elbows up, ready to lead the fight.
What we are seeing today with Bill C‑12, which is a new incarnation of Bill C‑2, is the same backpedalling and the same attempt to pander to Donald Trump's administration. That man obsesses over certain things. He is anti-migrant, anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker, plus he is concerned about borders. He is also concerned about drug trafficking, which is entirely legitimate. Opioids and fentanyl are having devastating effects on our communities, and serious measures must be put in place at the border, particularly when it comes to the Canada Border Services Agency. However, the government is playing along with Donald Trump's game, attempting to give him guarantees so that he might eventually negotiate with us. After six months, all we are seeing is setbacks that hurt Quebeckers and Canadians and, in this case, will hurt thousands of people whose fundamental rights will be violated by the Liberal government in an attempt to pander to the American president.
There are people in this field who work for more than 300 civil society organizations and who have already spoken out against the Liberal government's Bill C‑12. I am going to quote them, and I am going to use their line of reasoning to discuss them today, because I think it is important. These are people active on the ground, who know the reality of the situation. They know exactly how this will impact the lives of certain people, including parents, families and children. In some cases, these consequences are very severe.
I am going to begin with the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, or TCRI. It has this to say:
Bill...raises major concerns for migrants, especially migrants who claim asylum. The measures that the government is proposing could prevent vulnerable individuals from obtaining important protections.
These protections existed, or still exist, but they are under threat.
Restricting the right to asylum: The bill introduces two new grounds for inadmissibility. First, a claim will be deemed inadmissible if it is filed more than one year after entering Canada, effective June 24, 2020. The one-year deadline is determined from the first entry after that date, not from the date of the last entry.
If someone came to Canada on a visitor visa as a journalist or a temporary worker, for example, after June 24, 2020, and returned two years later, the one-year period would begin from the first entry, even if the situation in their country has changed and returning to that country would now put them at risk. The government refuses to listen to any new information. Too bad if someone arrived three years ago for the first time. Starting June 24, 2020, the one-year deadline starts at that point. It is absurd.
Second, an asylum claim filed more than 14 days after an irregular entry at a land border will now be deemed inadmissible, as will claims filed less than 14 days after such entry. However, the individual will not be removed to the United States. They will only have access to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).
These deadlines do not take into account the realities experienced by migrants (trauma, vulnerability, lack of access to information and legal support, etc.);
These deadlines are completely arbitrary. It seems that everything is being done to send these people home. That obviously makes Donald Trump happy.
The new rules would apply as of June 3, 2025, even before the bill is officially passed. That means that people who applied legally could have their claim determined to be ineligible retroactively;
That is also extremely serious. Retroactive measures may be implemented as soon as the bill is passed.
People whose claim is determined to be ineligible would have access only to the PRRA, a procedure that does not provide the same guarantees as the refugee determination process and whose approval rates are very low, approximately 2% to 4%.
New step in the asylum claim process: The bill introduces another review between the determination of the asylum claim's eligibility and the referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC] will be responsible for conducting this review. [It will gather the information and documents related to the asylum claim.] It will have the power to reverse the eligibility decision and to ask the IRB to determine whether the claim for refugee protection has been withdrawn. These new powers raise several concerns about access to a fair process, especially since many important aspects of the review will be determined by regulation.
We do not know what that will look like yet.
Increased government powers [particularly for the executive]: The bill would allow the government to suspend certain claims en masse or cancel immigration documents in the name of “public interest”, bypassing [the transparency] obligations usually associated with the adoption of government decrees.
We have no idea what “public interest” means. Massive powers will therefore be concentrated in the hands of the executive, which will be able to cancel existing claims in a global, massive, and discriminatory manner.
Confusion between migration and security issues: By conflating immigration, asylum, and the fight against organized crime, the [Liberal] bill reinforces the perception of migrants as a threat and justifies a repressive rather than humanitarian approach.
This is extremely serious in the context of rising populism, the far right, hate speech, discrimination, and racism. It is this kind of conflation that Bill C‑12 continues to fuel today.
The TCRI also calls on the federal government to respect its obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Canada is a signatory, and the 1967 Protocol, which enshrines the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits returning a person to a country where their life or freedom is or would be threatened.
The Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in Singh also serves as a legal benchmark. The Supreme Court found that anyone present in Canada, including asylum seekers, have access to Charter protections, including the right to a full hearing.
On behalf of this organization, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and 300 other organizations, I am asking the House to think carefully and to ask the federal government to scrap Bill C‑12.