Canadian bill seeks to deny hearings to some asylum-seekers
The bill comes as the government seeks to address U.S. concerns about its border security and reduce the number of migrants in the country. In addition to denying some refugee hearings and allowing the suspension, cancellation or variance of immigration documents, the bill facilitates sharing people's information and makes it easier to read people's mail, among other measures.
President Donald Trump has said Canada had failed to do enough to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S., using that as justification for some of his tariffs. This week Trump doubled the tariffs in place on steel and aluminum, prompting calls for Canada to boost retaliatory measures of its own. Late last year Canada pledged C$1.3 billion to beef up its border.
As Canada reduces the number of new permanent and temporary residents, its refugee system faces a historic backlog of more than 280,000 cases.
This week's bill follows through on some of those border promises as well as on suggestions from some top ministers that Canada would fast-track refusals for some refugee claims.
If the bill passes, asylum-seekers who have been in Canada more than one year would not be eligible for refugee hearings.
Instead, they would have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, meant to determine whether they would be in danger in their country of origin. According to data published by Canada's Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department, 30% of pre-removal risk assessments in 2019 for people deemed ineligible for refugee hearings were approved; by contrast, according to Immigration and Refugee Board data, that year 60% of finalized refugee hearings were approved.
Asylum-seekers who wait two weeks to file claims after crossing from the U.S. to avoid being turned back under a bilateral agreement would also not get hearings.
The bill, which needs to go through multiple readings before the House of Commons votes on it and sends it to the Senate, would also allow the government to "cancel, suspend or vary" immigration documents if deemed in the public interest.
Migrant and refugee advocates worry the changes could leave vulnerable people deported to dangerous situations in their home countries without adequate due process.
A spokesperson for Canada's Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said on Wednesday that the government recognizes the conditions in people's home countries may change, but the pre-removal risk assessment will prevent them from being returned to persecution or torture.
"The asylum ineligibilities introduced yesterday seek to maintain protection for those fleeing danger while discouraging misuse that bypasses the asylum system's function – which is to protect the vulnerable," the spokesperson wrote in an email.
"Canada is reneging on its basic human rights obligations to do individual arbitration," said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan.
"This is teeing up a deportation machine."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
Court ruling complicates UK government's efforts to house asylum seekers
The dilemma of how to house asylum seekers in Britain got more challenging for the government after a landmark court ruling this week motivated opponents to fight hotels used as accommodation. Politicians on the right capitalized on a temporary injunction that blocked housing asylum seekers in a hotel in Epping, on the outskirts of London, to encourage other communities to also go to court. The issue is at the heart of a heated public debate over how to control unauthorized immigration that has bedeviled countries across the West as an influx of migrants seeking a better life as they flee war-torn countries, poverty, regions wracked by climate change or political persecution. In the U.K., the debate has focused on the arrival of migrants crossing the English Channel in overloaded boats run by smugglers and escalating tensions over housing thousands of asylum seekers at government expense around the country. Here's a look at the issue: The hotels The government is legally obligated to house asylum seekers. Using hotels to do so had been a marginal issue until 2020, when the number of asylum seekers increased sharply and the then-Conservative government had to find new ways to house them. There have been more than 27,000 unauthorized arrivals so far this year, nearly 50% higher than at the same point last year and ahead of the number at this time of year in 2022, when a record 45,755 came ashore. The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels stood at just over 32,000 at the end of June, according to Home Office figures released Thursday. That figure was up 8% from about 29,500 a year earlier but far below the peak of more than 56,000 in September 2023. A total of 111,084 people applied for asylum in the year to June 2025, the highest number for any 12-month period since current records began in 2001. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. The Epping case Anti-migrant protesters and counter-protesters gathered for weeks outside the Bell Hotel in Epping after news that a hotel resident tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl and was charged with sexual assault. The man has denied the accusation and is due to stand trial later this month. Epping Forest District Council sought a temporary injunction to shut down the hotel because of 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption,' which had led to several arrests. The High Court decision in favor of the council has the potential to spread elsewhere and government ministers are scrambling to work out what they can do if other councils manage to win similar rulings. However, the Epping decision was based on planning laws, which may not apply elsewhere. The politics Many politicians, such as Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage, have sought to link many of the problems the country faces, such as health and housing, with migrant arrivals. Others, including the government, argue that the likes of Farage are whipping up the issue for political gain and that there are no easy answers to an issue affecting many European countries. The leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, urged Tory councils all over the country to launch legal challenges similar to that of Epping if their legal advice allowed. The ruling Labour Party dismissed her appeal as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense,' but several Labour-led councils have also suggested they, too, could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. The worry is that the tensions could explode into the sort of violence that ravaged many towns and cities in England last summer in the wake of a stabbing rampage at a dance class that left three girls dead and several wounded. Government options The government's first priority is to sharply decrease the number of dangerous channel crossings. Having ditched the Conservative administration's plan to send migrants who arrived by unauthorized means to Rwanda, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said his government would disrupt the gangs profiting off migrant trafficking. The government is also looking to speed up processing asylum claims and hoping a deal with France to send migrants who cross the channel back back to France will succeed as a deterrent for others. Whether those plans succeed or not, however, the issue of what to do with the tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the country remains. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the government is looking for contingency options. The government scrapped the use of a barge to house migrants off the south coast earlier this year and plans to end housing at military barracks in Kent next month. But a former air base in Essex is expected to add more beds for men seeking asylum. The easiest option would most likely house asylum seekers in the private sector, but that risks compounding problems in the rental market in a country where housebuilding has been low for years. ___ Associated Press writer Danica Kirka contributed to this story.
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
New York court throws out $500M fraud ruling against Trump after blockbuster lawsuit from Letitia James
A state appeals court in New York has thrown out a multi-million dollar fraud penalty against Donald Trump and his associates, handing the president a significant victory in a lawsuit alleging massive fraud in his family business. Last year, a verdict in Manhattan found that Trump and his co-defendants in his Trump Organization empire had defrauded banks and investors as part of a decade-long scheme to secure favorable financing terms for some of his brand-building properties. An appeals court decision on Thursday determined that the verdict from New York Justice Arthur Engoron — which has ballooned to more than $515 million, with growing interest — was 'excessive.' Last year's ruling followed a three-year investigation and lawsuit under Attorney General Letitia James, who had accused Trump and his associates had convinced banks and lenders to give them favorable financing terms based on bogus and inflated financial statements. After a bench trial in civil court, Trump, his companies and trust were ordered to state more than $354 million. The president also was barred from holding any executive office with a New York company and from getting loans from New York banks for three years, while his adult sons are barred from executive offices with any New York company for two years. Former executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney were also permanently barred from financially controlling any New York businesses, and faced a three-year ban from serving as an officer or director of any New York business. In his ruling, Engoron pointed to the defendants' lack of credibility on the witness stand, their failed strategy to 'blame the accountants' for the false financial statements and valuations at the centre of the case, and the 'evidence of deceit' used to come up with the inflated figures under scrutiny. He pointed to a history of malfeasance within the Trump Organization, followed by the findings in the sprawling fraud case, to determine that Trump and his co-defendants are 'likely to continue their fraudulent ways' without a significant judgment against them. 'Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,' he wrote in a 92-page order. 'They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin,' he added. 'Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Future Queen of Belgium's future at Harvard revealed amid President Donald Trump's move to ban foreign students
Princess Elisabeth is set to resume her studies at Harvard University following Donald Trump 's move to ban international students. The academic fate of the Belgian royal, 23, appeared to be hanging in the balance earlier this year when in May, the US president revoked Harvard's ability to enroll international students. But the prestigious Massachusetts university has resisted the lawsuit meaning the rule has been temporarily blocked. This means the future Queen will be able to return to her studies in September, when she is due to begin her second year of studying. 'I can confirm that, for now, all the conditions seem to be in place for the princess to continue her studies at Harvard,' the Belgian Royal Palace's communication director Xavier Baert said on Tuesday, confirming a newspaper report. The princess previously said she didn't want any 'special treatment' regarding her continued stay at Harvard. She believes it is essential to 'show solidarity with other international students,' some of whom are her close friends, a source told HLN. The sources added that Elisabeth is conscious about the message she sends to other students, as well as ensuring happy relations between Belgium and the United States. In June, a federal judge blocked the administration from implementing the proclamation Trump signed that sought to bar foreign nationals from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard. The future queen of Belgium is set to begin her second year of a two-year master's program in Public Policy at Harvard, a course designed to broaden students' perspectives and sharpen their skills for 'successful careers in public service', according to Harvard's website. Almost 6,800 international students attended the 388-year-old university in its most recent school year, comprising about 27 per cent of its student population. News that the princess would be able to continue her course on campus was reported on Tuesday by Belgian royal journalist, Wim Dehandschutter. 'The palace told me, "All indicators are currently green for her. There are no concrete reasons why she would not be able to return to Harvard in September",' he said. They added that sources close to the family had always been confident there would be a positive outcome. It is said that the family believed even in the 'worst case scenario' that it would at least be possible for the Princess to attend online lectures - or find a different campus in another country. Meanwhile Princess Elisabeth's parents King Philippe and Queen Mathilde were said to have found themselves in a difficult diplomatic situation - as they wouldn't want to create tensions with the US, according to Dehandschutter. Additionally, for Elisabeth - who has already has an undergraduate degree from the University of Oxford - a return to Belgium would have posed further issues such as having to choose between Dutch-speaking and a French-speaking university, and between a Catholic and a liberal one. Continuing her studies abroad is a priority for the Princess, as her father King Phillipe spent a semester studying at Oxford and three years in the US at Stanford University. After she completes her studies, Elisabeth is expected to take up a more active role in Belgium and become an active Crown Princess. Following the announcement made by President Trump in May earlier this year, the family released a statement saying they were 'investigating the situation' and were awaiting a decision. Trump's ban would force foreign students to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status in the US. The president had threatened to expand the crackdown to other colleges. Elisabeth, who has spent the summer in her native country, will be Belgium's first reigning Queen when she ascends the throne. The eldest of four children born to King Philippe and Queen Mathilde, she also has studied at the Royal Military Academy in Brussels. She speaks Dutch, French, German and English. At Harvard, the princess is studying Public Policy, a two-year master's degree program that prepares students for a life of public service. Before studying in the United States, she earned a degree in history and politics from Oxford University in the United Kingdom. The Trump administration has said it is trying to force change at Harvard and other top-level universities across the US, contending they have become bastions of leftist 'woke' thought and antisemitism, which they deny. The administration has appealed the judge's ruling, but with the new school year set to begin on Sept 2, the injunction against the foreign student ban remains in effect. Harvard enrolls almost 6,800 foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, accounting for more than a quarter of its student body. Most are graduate students, coming from more than 100 countries. The Harvard Kennedy School has almost half its student body from abroad and Harvard Business School is about one-third international students. The university has several notable alumni who are not American-born, including Canadian author Margaret Atwood, Indian billionaire philanthropists Ratan Tata and Anand Mahindra, and author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Following the announcement made by Trump, the university filed a lawsuit un federal court in Boston, saying the the government's action violates the First Amendment and will have an 'immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders.' Since then, a federal at Boston court released a block on the White House's ban, allowing international students to return to school while court proceedings play out. It was reported last week that Harvard and the Trump administration are getting close to an agreement that would require the Ivy League university to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end investigations.
