ICLMG submitted a short brief on the problematic Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Read the full brief below and please take action to stop C-12:

TAKE ACTION

ICLMG has observed with deep concern the growing securitization of the Canadian border based on the framing of migrants and refugees as a national security threat even when evidence does not support such claims, as well as pressure from the United States for Canada to further align and integrate its border security with their own, to the detriment of civil liberties protections in Canada.

In June 2025, the ICLMG joined more than 300 other civil society organizations in speaking out over the dangers of Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, including the severe harms to fundamental rights if many of the provisions in Bill C-2 were adopted. The introduction of Bill C-12 failed to alleviate these concerns, particularly by replicating changes to Canada’s immigration and refugee regime included in Bill C-2.

We continue to join others in calling for both C-2 and C-12 to be withdrawn in favor of consultations and, if warranted, the introduction of targeted legislation that upholds and protects fundamental rights.

Below we outline specific areas of concern with Bill C-12.

1. Part 5: Information Sharing — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Part 5 of Bill C-12 would expand the ability of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share private information across federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as with foreign entities. These changes would have a significant impact on privacy rights for all people in Canada, regardless of status. For migrants and refugees, the powers could inhibit their ability to access critical services without fear or harm, as well as pose serious risks for those seeking protection from persecution by foreign states. Permanent residents and Canadian citizens could also see their information impacted, including details collected in residency or passport applications.

Categories of information covered are very broad, including relating to identity, status, and the contents of any document issued to an individual, including information regarding the issuance, renewal, refusal, termination, revocation or suspension of a document.

This could include information relating to finances, health, biometrics, employment or family and friends, changes in status or gender identity, or prejudicial information relating to decisions to refuse or cancel documents.

This information could be shared with a wide range of service providers including housing and health authorities, with police and security agencies, or with foreign entities for uses far beyond the original reasons the information was collected, exposing individuals to possible discrimination or harm.

Moreover, once information is shared outside of Canada, it is impossible to control. Protections to avoid foreign abuse would be limited to avoiding substantial risk of “mistreatment,” defined in legislation as “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”; it would fail to apply to other equally dangerous forms of persecution that do not meet that high bar.

Nor do these new powers include provisions for reporting, record keeping, or to ensure accuracy of information shared.

2. Part 7: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Certain Measures in Respect of Applications and Documents)

Part 7 would grant the Governor in Council extraordinary powers to issue orders, based on “Public Interest,” to not accept, suspend or terminate applications for various forms of visas, and to cancel, vary or suspend immigration documents, including temporary visas and permanent residency cards.

We oppose the creation of such broad powers due to the strong possibility of misuse in general. This is compounded by the lack of a definition for “public interest,” a term so vague and malleable that it could easily be used in prejudicial ways. For example, previous governments have sought to block specific nationalities from immigrating to Canada. By deciding that it is against the “public interest,” future governments would be able to do the same. The ability to cancel documents of individuals already in the country would also open up the possibility of mass deportations, again based solely on “public interest.” Nor would such actions be restricted to instances of a national emergency; future governments would have a carte blanche to determine when the “public interest” merited the use of these powers.

3. Part 8: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility)

Changes in Part 8 of Bill C-12 would result in refugee claims made after a year had passed since a claimant first arrived in Canada (post-June 2020) being directed to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), as opposed to adjudication by decision makers at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), where they would have the right to an oral hearing and appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division.

PRRAs are much less robust: They lack independence since they are assessed by employees of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (who do not have the same expertise or receive the same training). Nor are PRRAs more efficient, given that they are more likely to lead to error and heavy reliance on them is likely to overwhelm our federal courts.

The impacts of these changes would be severe. For example:

• An infant visiting Canada with her parents in 2022 would be ineligible to seek protection if she returns 20 years later due to persecution in her country.
• Three years into an international students stay in Canada, they come out as homosexual, and are unable to return to their home country for fear of persecution

These types of cases merit a fulsome refugee claim, and not be relegated to the PRRA system. While proponents have suggested this is a need to address abuse or inefficiencies in the refugee claim process, a universal bar is a blunt instrument that will have significant impacts on those seeking protection, with questionable benefits to the asylum system. These changes would also go against Canada’s international legal obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and related UN guidance.

For the PDF of the brief, click here.

Since you’re here… … we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!

On October 30, 2025, ICLMG’s National Coordinator Tim McSorley testified on behalf of the coalition, opposing Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, regarding concerns over the criminalization of peaceful protest and restriction of free speech. You can read the transcription below.

We also urge you to please take action to stop Bill C-9:

TAKE ACTION

TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, for the invitation to appear today.

I am here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of 45 Canadian organizations from a broad range of sectors. ICLMG was founded in 2002 to serve as a watchdog around the impacts of Canada’s national security and anti-terrorism laws on civil liberties.

Our coalition has observed with distress the increase in hate-based violence across Canada over the past several years.

We believe that greater measures must be taken to address instances of hate-based violence. But such measures must be targeted and specific, and ensure that they do not unduly impact civil liberties or Charter rights, including of those who the measures are ostensibly meant to protect.

Unfortunately, several measures in Bill C-9 fail that test. We share the concerns of the 37 other signatories of an open letter, led by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that pointed to detailed and substantial problems in Bill C-9, and ultimately called for it to be withdrawn.

While we share overall concerns expressed by our colleagues, today I would like to focus on one particular area of the bill.

We are concerned with the provisions in Clause 4 of the bill that would create a new offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in public.

These new provisions pose a significant threat to freedom of expression by granting broad and discretionary powers to police, and by basing the determination of which symbols are included on a flawed terrorist listing process. Moreover, the provisions are redundant, and therefore unnecessary.

To begin with that last point: The wilful promotion of hatred is already a Criminal Code offense. It is understood that the determination of wilfully promoting hatred can already include the use of particular symbols, including those of a listed entity. The only difference will be that the wording will place greater emphasis on the use of a symbol in the commission of a hate offence.

This leads to our second concern: that the wording of this new offense creates the serious risk of police making discretionary decisions related to what constitutes a symbol “associated with” or “used by” a listed terrorist entity.

Over the past several months, we have seen heated arguments and accusations that certain symbols associated with protests in support of Palestinian human rights are either hateful, are associated with a terrorist entity, or both. Peaceful and lawful protests have been unjustly accused of fomenting hate based on the signs and slogans that they carry or chant.

Under this new legislation, police could make a determination, in the middle of a march or protest, not just of what constitutes a symbol associated with a terrorist entity, but that it is being used to wilfully promote hatred. There will continue to be pressure on police to stop and arrest anybody carrying a symbol that they may believe is used by or associated with a terrorist entity – whether that be a Hamas or Hezbollah flag, a keffiyeh or a disputed slogan on a sign.

This is made more complicated by the fact that police would be empowered to make the decision that a symbol so nearly resembles the symbol associated with a terrorist entity. For example, would Arabic writing on a sign that a police officer believes is similar enough to writing found on imagery used by a listed terrorist entity be enough to arrest an individual? And this confusion would of course apply to all listed entities, and could impact protests from a broad range of communities.

These issues raise important questions of “guilt by association” or the tarring of entire movements with suspicion. We have seen this throughout the last twenty years of anti-terrorism measures, and acutely over the last two years during protests or rallies, in academic settings, or even in parliamentary committee meetings.

Given the severe potential for overreach, along with the stigma of being accused of committing a hate crime, we believe that this law will create a significant chill on free expression and dissent.

Finally, we are also troubled by the fact that the symbols in question are based on the Terrorist Entities List, which itself is a problematic tool.

Serious issues with Canada’s terrorist listing procedure include: the imposition of serious financial and possibly criminal consequences on the basis of unaccountable, secret executive listing decisions; the use of secret evidence; and the absence of adequate avenues for challenging listings and obtaining redress. Decisions to list or not list can also be political in nature.

New criminal offenses, especially those that themselves invite discretionary decision-making, should not be founded on a process already demonstrated to raise significant constitutional concerns.

As mentioned above, this is simply one of the many concerns with Bill C-9. Beyond removing this section, we agree that the bill should be withdrawn and the government’s approach revisited.

Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.

Since you’re here… … we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!