Latest news with #BillC2
National Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: Carney's border bill is bracing Canada for more Liberal neglect
Article content Now, India dominates the influx of foreigners to Canada, making up 27 per cent of new permanent residents in 2022, and 45 per cent of international students. It also comprises 22 per cent of temporary foreign workers. The downsides of this are wide-ranging, including the risk of cultural enclaves, as well as the proliferation of organized crime and exploitation thanks to the difficulty in tracing cross-border networks and investigating through language barriers. A country cap of, say 10 to 15 per cent — perhaps less, to make up for past years — wouldn't solve everything, but it would help. Article content The government's new open-minded approach to information sharing is another point of optimism — perhaps it could lead to better enforcement, and maybe, just maybe, greater ability for police to disclose the citizenship status of non-citizens charged with crimes. Canadians should have the right to know whether that 'Brampton man' charged with sexually assaulting a girl in a park was here by birthright, or was welcomed by an immigration system designed by politicians who are ultimately accountable to the public. Article content Article content As for the regulation of street drugs, Bill C-2 would also tighten our lax rules on ingredients — also called precursor chemicals — which have made this country a convenient staging ground for illicit manufacturing. It's about time. Article content Any optimism for this bill, however, can't be felt without doubt. Any provision that allows cabinet to make rules on a general subject remains vulnerable to not being acted upon at all, which means we may never see source-country limits. And regardless of a few more proposed restrictions on asylum, Carney's overall immigration plan is one that will largely maintain Trudeau-era intake numbers, leaving Canada an even more crowded place. Article content Also clouding the bill is a new regime for obtaining internet service provider information, which is loaded with a slew of privacy-infringing procedures, and its new border-security related powers at sea, whose purpose might be to simply count more of the coast guard's budget towards our NATO obligations. Article content One gets the impression that Carney is following in the footsteps of his British counterpart, Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is now taking a supposed hatchet to immigration in response to the population shock that's been hitting the United Kingdom for at least a decade now. But there, both Reform and Conservative critics believe Starmer's plan doesn't match the scale of the problem. Article content In Canada, we seem to be in a similar spot. The left now admits that immigration needs limits, and those in charge are striking a tougher tone to match the concerns of the people. If deployed effectively, it could be a lot of help — but if Bill C-2 turns out to be a mostly aesthetic exercise, our ship is going to continue sinking. Article content
National Post
13 hours ago
- Business
- National Post
FIRST READING: The wild overreach contained in the Liberals' new border control bill
Article content TOP STORY Article content The first piece of legislation tabled by the new Carney government is a bill framed as a means to tighten the 'security of the border between Canada and the United States.' Article content 'The Bill will … keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering' read a backgrounder. Article content Article content But within days of the text becoming public, analysts began to notice that Bill C-2's 140 pages contained a number of provisions that went well beyond the usual scope of chasing down drug smugglers and gangsters. This includes a clause that technically outlaws paying for anything with more than $10,000 in cash. Article content Article content The bill would do this via an amendment to The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, legislation that was first made law in 2000. The amendment states that it would become an offence to accept 'a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction.' Article content It doesn't matter if the $10,000 is paid to a licensed business for a legal product or service: The mere fact that the payment is in cash is what makes it illegal. Article content Article content It also becomes illegal if 'a prescribed series of related transactions' come to a total of more than $10,000. So, if you pay $2,000 cash to a contractor more than five times, that contractor will have officially violated The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act. Article content Article content In a statement, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms conceded that it's a rare thing for a Canadian to pay a five-figure bill in cash, but warned that once the precedent is set, it would be very easy for governments to reduce the 'legal amount' of a cash transaction. 'Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,' it wrote. Article content 'If we cherish our privacy, we need to defend our freedom to choose cash, in the amount of our choosing. This includes, for example, our right to pay $10,000 cash for a car, or to donate $10,000 (or more) to a charity.' Article content Another twist with the provision is that it only covers donations collected by an entity involved in 'the solicitation of charitable financial donations.' So virtually all of the anti-Israel protests regularly blockading Canadian streets would be exempt, as they're not organized by registered charities. If you want to hand $10,000 in cash to your local Globalize the Intifada vigil, The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act has no quarrel with you.
CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
Experts warn of Bill C-2 as "anti-refugee" and "anti-immigrant" giving Canada "unchecked powers" like the U.S.
Mbonisi Zikhali came to Canada in 2009 from Zimbabwe to pursue a master's in journalism at Carleton University. Post-graduation, the international student found himself homeless in Windsor and applied for refugee status – a privilege soon unavailable if Bill C-2 becomes the law. "The bill is unnecessary and not sympathetic at all to people's well-being," Zikhali said. Many experts and community groups working with newcomers in Canada agree. They are calling on the Liberal government's sweeping new legislation, Bill C-2 or the Strong Borders Act, "anti-immigrant and anti-refugee" hoping the legislation is not voted on to become law. Zikhali said he came on scholarship and in 2012 found himself in Windsor picking tomatoes at a greenhouse. Soon enough, he was living on the streets, and lost his passport which also had his study permit in it. Applying for refugee status, Zikhali said, was his saving grace and worries this bill will deprive vulnerable people of a safe haven. What is Bill C-2? The legislation proposes changes to a number of laws including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 20 hours ago Duration 2:43 Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for international students and temporary residents. For example, an Afghan international student came to study here in July 2020 .The Taliban takes over in August 2021 and things become scary back home. That student could have applied for asylum. But with this bill, the one-year time period would have lapsed and they would be ineligible. Zikhali said had the bill been around when he was applying for asylum, it would have been "devastating" as he would have been denied. The immigration changes 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. "Very U.S.-like" bill: refugee help centre Windsor's Matthew House gives refugees a place to live and helps them with resettlement. Mike Morency, their executive director, worries this bill will put more vulnerable people at greater harm. "It continues to align our immigration system with that of the United States," Morency said. "Refugee claimants are not the problem. The one year-ban is a major concern for us. The other major concern for us is the ability of the government to declare an emergency and suspend applications. That one to me feels very US-like." Morency said he understands the government's will to try to cut back on international students and migrant workers making a refugee claim as a way to stay in Canada, but worries for people who have a legitimate need for protection being unfairly targeted. "It also feels very much like a workaround to our commitment to the Geneva Convention. If the government wants to step out of the Geneva Convention, then then we need to do it with integrity and we need to approach the UN and say we're going to withdraw," he said. Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, agrees saying the bill violates Canada's "most basic legal obligations" and is "immoral". Hussan asserts the bill infringes upon Canada's legal commitments and ethical standards by granting the government excessive authority to cancel permits. "Every refugee gets to have the right to have their case heard. That's now being taken away," he said. "Collectively it's a bill that gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status… This is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill. It's illegal." Without any ability for people to appeal or have their case individually heard, Hussan said, the bill allows the government to "make people undocumented or just throw people out of the country in the hundreds of thousands". The changes also allow the federal immigration department to share information more widely with different agencies within Canada. Hussan said anyone who was not a citizen or later became a citizen will have their data impacted by the bill. Hassan said this is similar to the US immigration policies. "This is Carney's first test and he's failed it. He's no different from Donald Trump." Sharry Aiken, professor of law at Queen's University, also finds the bill troubling. "Very disappointing. It's a betrayal of many Canadians that supported this government in the most recent election," she said, noting these issues weren't part of the Liberal election campaign. The omnibus bill, she said, is quite complicated with 16 different parts and neither serves to reform the asylum system nor address Canadians' privacy rights. Typically, omnibus bills don't get the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, she said, which is concerning. Aiken said the one year-bar for asylum claimants represents "a major rollback of rights". "No longer are these claimants eligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division," she said. The division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) hears and decides claims for refugee protection in Canada. Aikens said this "arbitrary" bill will also very quickly develop a backlog. "The bill proposes a legislative fix for a problem that doesn't require new law. It requires operational intervention," she said. "This one year rule mimics what's in place in the U.S. and what has been the subject of extensive international criticism… This bill does a disservice to refugees and betrays the Canadian public's trust in the Liberal government for ensuring a fair refugee determination system consistent with international standards." She urges the MPs to separate out the provisions having the issues desegregated. 'Will make the process more cumbersome': immigration lawyer Toronto-based immigration lawyer, Mario Bellissimo, said with the bill creating "arbitrary distinctions" of 14 days and one year after June 2020, "an individualized assessment" approach is being taken away. While the number of refugee claimants have recently dipped, Bellissimo said the bill signals that Canada wants to potentially limit immigration. "It wants to send messages to individuals who want to traverse the system over many years without legitimate claims that this is not a destination of choice for you," he said. Bellissimo agrees that targeting individuals who impact the immigration system in a negative way is important but the bill will end up targeting individuals in genuine need of assistance.
CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill
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. 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.
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Ottawa's sweeping border bill ‘an attack' on asylum seekers' rights, says Amnesty International Canada
RCMP officers stop asylum seekers as they enter Canada via Roxham Road on the Canada-U.S. border in Hemmingford, Que., on March 25, 2023. (Graham Hughes / The Canadian Press) The federal government's proposed Bill C-2 is 'an attack' on refugees' right to seek asylum, Amnesty International Canada says. The human rights organization said in a press release Thursday that the bill, if passed, would make it 'virtually impossible' for the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to review refugee claims from most people entering Canada via the United States. Moreover, Amnesty International Canada says the bill would prevent people who have been in Canada for more than a year from seeking refugee status. People facing harm, including persecution and torture, in their countries could be 'unfairly denied' refugee protection by Canada, it added. Ketty Nivyabandi, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada's English-speaking section, said seeking asylum is a human right. 'With Bill C-2, the Canadian government threatens to chip away at that right, making it harder for people seeking safety and freedom to file an asylum claim and have it assessed fairly,' Nivyabandi said in a statement Thursday. 'This attack on the right to seek asylum will severely diminish Canada's international standing when it comes to protecting human rights.' Referring to the measures affecting immigrants and asylum seekers, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said in a press release Tuesday that Bill C-2, or the Strong Borders Act, would address what it called growing migration pressures by making the immigration and asylum systems stronger, efficient and more flexible. A separate news release Tuesday from Public Safety Canada said the changes will improve the 'integrity and fairness of our immigration system while protecting Canadians' privacy and Charter rights.' The federal government says it will also work with American border and law enforcement agencies to strengthen the border and combat organized crime. According to a background document, the bill includes ineligibility rules. People who make asylum claims more than one year after first arriving in Canada after June 24, 2020, would not be referred to the IRB. Asylum claimants who enter Canada from the United States along the land border and make a claim after 14 days would also not be referred to the IRB.
