Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to take part in the final stage of consideration of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

I would like to thank all the senators who participated in the debates and committee studies, both at the Social Affairs Committee and the National Security and Defence Committee.

I recognize that sponsoring this bill was no small feat, so I want to thank our honourable colleague, Senator Dean, for his active listening. My office has been swamped with telephone calls and over 1,000 emails from members of the Canadian public about the unintended consequences of Bill C-12. More than 300 organizations across Canada have spoken out against the amendments proposed by Bill C-12, which they believe flout the rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and stand in stark contrast to Canada’s international obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Incidentally, I sent you a summary table prepared by the Library of Parliament showing amendments proposed in committee by some organizations.

I rise today to speak to a fundamental issue related to Bill C-12. While its objectives are legitimate, some of the bill’s provisions could have serious and unintended consequences for one particularly vulnerable group. This group consists of people who entered Canada as minors and, after reaching adulthood, wish to claim asylum.

Clause 73 of the bill provides that the date of first entry into Canada may be used to determine future eligibility for asylum. However, we must recognize the simple and indisputable reality that a child has neither the legal capacity, nor the autonomy, nor even the necessary understanding to consent to a migration decision. A child does not choose to enter Canada. A child does not choose the circumstances of entry into Canada. A child certainly cannot foresee that a decision made by a parent or guardian may, years later, prevent them from applying for international protection.

Our colleague, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, pointed out that it would be absurd for someone who visited Canada with their parents as a baby in 2020 to be barred from seeking asylum here 20 years later, even if they are now being persecuted for being a human rights activist in their home country.

Preventing an adult from seeking asylum on the basis of an entry made as a child is tantamount to imposing a penalty for an act they did not commit. It goes against the fundamental principles of Canadian law, which has long recognized that minors cannot be held responsible for decisions made by the adults who are responsible for them.

It also goes against our international commitments, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all decisions concerning them.

On a humanitarian level, the consequences would be severe. We risk creating situations where a person fleeing persecution, violence or trafficking would be denied access to the asylum system simply because they were brought to Canada when they had no control over the situation.

This is not in keeping with Canadian values. This is not in keeping with our tradition of protecting vulnerable people. It is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of a fair and humane immigration system.

During the committee study, we received a letter from the ministers sponsoring Bill C-12 outlining the exemptions provided for under the new eligibility criteria for asylum in Canada. One of these exemptions will apply to unaccompanied minors. The letter reads, in part, as follows:

Given their lack of legal guardianship upon entry or during the first year after their first entry to Canada, these individuals should not be subject to the new ineligibilities.

This exclusion, which protects unaccompanied minors, is laudable, but it does not protect minors who enter Canada for all sorts of reasons and who, let me repeat, once they reach adulthood, would automatically fall under the new ineligibility criteria introduced in Bill C-12.

In summary, Part 8 of Bill C-12 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of inadmissibility for claims for refugee protection, including those related to first entry into Canada.

It requires officers to stop processing applications deemed inadmissible. It includes a transitional provision relating to the retroactive application of these new grounds to the date of introduction of Bill C-2, June 3, 2025. This retroactivity concerns me as it could be very detrimental to children born before that cut-off date.

Honourable senators, the amendment I’m proposing is simple, clear and easy to apply. It provides that the date of a claimant’s initial entry into Canada cannot be used to deny a refugee claim if the claimant was a minor prior to June 3, 2025. This amendment doesn’t compromise Bill C-12’s security objectives. On the contrary, it strengthens them by ensuring that the measures introduced are free from any unfair or disproportionate effects. It guarantees minors real and lasting protection.

By adopting this amendment, we’re also sending a clear message that strengthening border security must never come at the cost of children’s fundamental rights. We can protect the integrity of our immigration system while still upholding the principles of justice, consistency and humanity that define Canada. This amendment has the support of many organizations, including the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, The Refugee Centre, and Migrant Rights.