Immigration lawyer sounds alarm on federal government’s Bill C-12

Lawyer Chantal Desloges meets with a family from Hungary in her Toronto office on Thursday, Feb. 21, 2013.

A new border security bill features controversial adjustments to Canada’s immigration process that has upset lawyers and advocates.

Bill C-12 would give authorities the power to cancel or suspend visas, as well as work or study permits, if it is in the “public interest.” But “public interest” is “code for whatever the government wants it to mean at that time,” according to immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges.

“I think every Canadian should be concerned about this bill, even if they think immigration doesn’t affect their life directly,” Desloges told CTV Your Morning on Thursday.

‘Completely arbitrary’

C-12 opens the door to unnecessary challenges for immigrants and refugees, Desloges argued. Under the law, refugees would not be able to access the necessary government hearings if they don’t apply for asylum within a year of entering Canada, a move the lawyer suggested was short-sighted.

“Suppose I was a Ukrainian citizen who visited Canada ten years ago,” Desloges said. “Why should that then bar me (after the Russia-Ukraine war started) from making a refugee claim, now that the situation has completely changed?”

“What does my entry into Canada more than a year ago have to do with what’s going on in my country of origin now?” she continued. ”It’s completely arbitrary.”

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association echoes Desloges’ comments, warning that C-12 grants “excessively broad” powers. They criticized the definition of “public interest,” warning that the bill gave the government the power to cancel visas, permits, and permanent residencies without giving people “notice or opportunity to respond.”

C-12 would add more stress to the refugee system, not ease it, the association warned.

“The Bill does nothing to address the untenable IRB backlog of unheard refugee claims,” they wrote on Oct 16.

‘Pleasing President Trump’

Some critics say that C-12 has the same problem that Bill C-2, a similar piece of legislation, had.

“The story of this legislative package is the same today as it was on day one of Bill C-2’s introduction; it’s about pleasing (U.S.) President (Donald) Trump,” said Matt Hatfield, executive director of OpenMedia. Hatfield issued his statement after more than 300 civil society organizations came together in June to criticize the Bill C-2, C-12’s sister legislation.

Some argue that C-12 is a repackaging effort designed to skip past the “overwhelming opposition” to C-2. Bill C-2 had previously faced criticism over the expanded powers it gave to law enforcement agencies.

“C-12 leaves intact the measures to block refugee hearings, impose arbitrary retroactive one-year bars, and grant ministers mass immigration status-cancellation powers,” said Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network.

C-2 was originally presented as the “Strong Borders Act,” a move that Amnesty International said was designed to appease Trump. The government ended up creating C-12 in order to pass some of C-2 faster, but will continue working on passing the original law. However, C-12 was an “exact copy of the provisions attacking refugees and migrants in Bill C-2,” Amnesty International said.