Madam Speaker, we know that much of what is happening in the States with attacks on immigrants and attacks on asylum seekers is primarily impacting people of colour in cities across the United States. I do not want Canada to appease the kind of racist, dogmatic, fascist behaviour that we are seeing south of the border.
Just as in the case of the unconstitutional Bill C-5, Bill C-12 would create power for cabinet to create “Orders Made in the Public Interest”. This would give the government an unchecked power to stop receiving applications for visas and for other residency permits, to suspend processing of immigration applications and to target measures against “certain foreign nationals”.
There is no definition of “public interest” in Canadian law, and no explanation in the bill, so how do we know that the Liberal cabinet, or any future cabinet, would not in fact pursue its own interests or, worse yet, the interests of the Trump administration through this unconstitutional legislation?
The bill would also be very problematic for the safety of women and girls. Several women's organizations, in fact, including Women's Shelters Canada, the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, stated, “Survivors of...violence are uniquely harmed by arbitrary timelines and restricted pathways in immigration, which deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they most need it. Any changes to C-2 that do not remove the immigration provisions will continue to put vulnerable women at risk.”
A broad coalition of civil liberties groups, data privacy organizations, refugee and migrant rights organizations and gender justice organizations strongly opposes the government's introduction of Bill C-12, which seeks to fast-track rather than address many aspects of Bill C-2's myriad problems. In fact, a coalition of over 300 organizations is reiterating its call for a full withdrawal of both bills. That coalition includes Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Tim McSorley, who is part of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, indicated:
Bill C-12 does not fix Bill C-2; it fast tracks some of the most egregious aspects, while still moving forward with the rest. Our government has made it abundantly clear that they will continue to fight for every privacy-violating measure Bill C-2 still contains, and are only introducing Bill C-12 to get restrictions on migrant and refugee rights adopted sooner.
As parliamentarians, we are obliged to uphold international law, and that includes international conventions that we are signatories to, including for international human rights that grant asylum seekers the right to seek protection from prosecution. This is most notable in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1951 Refugee Convention. A core principle is non-refoulement, which means that countries are prohibited from returning refugees to a place where their life or freedom is at risk. Countries are obliged to assess asylum claims fairly and protect refugees from being sent back to danger.
I think about the number of refugees who have made Winnipeg Centre their home, whom I am proud to now have as neighbours and who fled life-and-death circumstances. We have a legal obligation to not close our borders to them.
Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Article 14 further notes that this right does not apply to those genuinely prosecuted for non-political crimes or acts against the UN principles.
This is a fundamental principle: the principle of non-refoulement. This fundamental principle of international law is also found in other international human rights treaties that we are signatories to. It prohibits the forced return of refugees to a country where they face a serious threat to their life or freedom. This is considered a customary international law that applies to all countries.
I felt very strongly about the NDP's position on this particular bill, a bill that would violate international law. It is a bill that, in fact, would violate the rule of law. It is a bill that would have an impact on our reputation around the world and that feeds into the racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic tropes that we are seeing coming from the south. Let us put silence on that voice and let us be what Canada has always been, a home welcoming to all.