- Expand the definition of who can be denied entry into Canada by expanding the definition of risk to national security and giving the Minister of Immigration power to issue a declaration that a person is inadmissible on public policy grounds;
- Reduce the review of government decisions to exclude persons from permanent residence by removing the right of appeal for persons sentenced to six months in prison, or for having committed or been convicted of a crime abroad that carries a maximum 10 year sentence or more in Canada;
- Reduce the circumstances where government officials may to take into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations by precluding certain people from applying, limiting the scope of considerations when applying for Minister’s relief, and removing appeals;
- Remove the discretion of immigration officers, board members and judges in determining conditions of release for immigrant detainees by imposing mandatory release conditions;
- Increase penalties for misrepresentation; and
- Allow CSIS to compel people to attend interviews and answer their questions if they are in the process of an immigration application.
These changes increase the discretion of the Ministers of Immigration and Public Safety throughout the inadmissibility process while subsequently removing safeguards and the ability of immigration officers, Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, or Judges to make individualized assessments based on all the facts. The result is that persons will be excluded and removed from Canada where there are compelling reasons for them to stay. Innocent people, found to be inadmissible to Canada because of unduly broad security laws, will no longer be able to remain in Canada for exceptional or humanitarian reasons. Persons who have lived in Canada all of their lives, whose families, friends, workplaces, and places of worship are in Canada, will be removed on the basis of a conviction alone and will have no right to appeal.
Further, because the new legislation fails to define exactly what “public policy reasons” in relation to the Minister’s ability to issue an inadmissibility declaration, it is not clear where this authority would apply in the absence of the seven other grounds available to find persons inadmissible being available.
Finally, expanding the authority of CSIS officers must be understood within the context of intelligence officers not having this type of authority in any other context, and the existing legal requirements for foreign nationals and permanent residents to answer questions truthfully and to provide evidence when asked by officials.
Bill C-43 has already passed through the House of Commons and is currently being reviewed in the Senate. The Bill’s progression through parliament can be tracked here.
In November 2012, CARL Members made submissions to the Citizenship and Immigration Committee of the House of Commons focusing on the broad security laws and the removal of appeals. The testimony can be read here.