Is Bill C-12 designed for MASS DEPORTATIONS? IRCC and public safety ministers grilled by senators 🇨🇦

Discussion on Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Changes

Minister Diab's Response to Senator Osler

• Senator Osler questions the implications of Clause 72, which allows for the cancellation or variation of immigration documents, including permanent resident status, in the public interest.

• Minister Diab clarifies that these powers do not apply to permanent residents but rather to individuals on temporary visas.

• The minister emphasizes that the bill is not designed to revoke permanent resident status but aims to strengthen control over immigration documents when necessary for public interest.

• He explains that existing powers were previously executed one by one, making processes inefficient; this change would allow for more streamlined actions during emergencies like cyber attacks.

• The minister agrees to provide further clarification regarding concerns about potential changes in status for permanent residents.

Concerns About Procedural Fairness

• Senator H raises concerns about C12 potentially leading to mass deportations without fair hearings, drawing parallels with current U.S. policies.

• She asks what safeguards will be implemented to ensure asylum claimants receive procedural fairness and access to judicial review before removal from Canada.

• Minister Diab discusses the pre-removal risk assessment process, which has been upheld as meeting international obligations and allows individuals facing risks upon return a chance to stay in Canada.

• He notes that this process is initiated when an enforceable order is issued by CBSA, allowing individuals who face persecution or threats a means of challenging their removal.

• The minister asserts that C12 is not intended for mass deportation and emphasizes the importance of maintaining procedural fairness within Canada's immigration system.

Public Safety and Immigration Legislation Discussion

Concerns About Public Safety Threats

• The speaker categorically rejects the notion that current immigration legislation (C12) is aimed at mass deportation, emphasizing Canada's values and humanitarian perspective.

• There is a distinction made between Canada’s approach to immigration compared to other countries, highlighting a commitment to human rights.

Examination of Part Seven of the Bill

• A senator raises concerns regarding part seven of the bill, which allows the government to cancel or suspend immigration documents and applications. The implications of these powers are questioned.

• The definition of "public interest" is scrutinized, with concerns about potential misuse against specific ethnic or religious groups being raised.

Scope of Immigration Documents

• Clarification is provided on what constitutes "documents" versus "status," indicating that documents like visas are vehicles for travel while status is conferred upon entry into Canada.

• Specific types of documents included under this scope are listed: temporary resident visas, work permits, study permits, etc., while citizenship-related documents are excluded from this authority.

Authority Limitations and Implications

• It is emphasized that the new authorities do not allow for revocation of status but rather enable alterations or cancellations of documents without affecting an individual's legal status in Canada. This aims to prevent mass deportations.

• Examples illustrate how document cancellation works; if a work permit is canceled, it does not revoke someone's status but restricts their ability to work legally in Canada.

Non-Punitive Measures Explained

• The discussion includes scenarios where document cancellation may be necessary due to fraud or security threats, such as cyber attacks leading to unauthorized visa issuance. This process would involve thorough investigation before any action is taken.

Governance and Public Interest in Canada

Decision-Making Process Involving the Governor and Council

• The process requires a comprehensive approach that includes all relevant documents and stakeholders, ensuring transparency in decision-making.

• The governor and council are responsible for making final decisions, which must be justified as being in the best interests of Canada.

• There are checks and balances to ensure that any ministerial focus on specific populations is validated by counterparts within the government before reaching the governor and council.

• The definition of "public interest" was initially vague but has been amended to include clearer criteria for what constitutes public interest considerations.

Defining Public Interest

• Public interest can encompass various issues such as administrative errors, fraud cases, or national security concerns.

• Current regulations under URPA do not allow for halting applications; they continue to accumulate until processed despite caps on certain programs.

• National security scenarios may lead to broad restrictions based on identified threats from specific groups or countries, although this remains speculative regarding government actions.