Coalition Condemns Carney’s New Border and Immigration Bill

By Mata Press Service

A broad coalition representing lawyers, civil liberties, migrant rights, gender-justice advocates, and drug policy experts is raising alarms over the federal government’s latest border and immigration legislation, Bill C-12.

The groups say the new bill fails to fix its controversial predecessor and instead threatens rights and due process for refugees, immigrants, and vulnerable communities in Canada.

The legislation, reintroduced as Prime Minister Mark Carney seeks to manage tensions with Washington over border controls, is being condemned as a rushed political concession that puts human rights at risk.

“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,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG).

“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.”

Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, said the motivation behind the bills remains unchanged: “The story of this legislative package is the same today as it was on day one of Bill C-2’s introduction; it’s about pleasing President Trump. Canadians reject this multi-layered concession of our rights and freedoms to American pressure, and we expect lawmakers to resoundingly vote against both bills.”

Advocates say the bill entrenches new barriers to refugee hearings, expands surveillance, and creates broad powers to cancel immigration status at scale, with little oversight.

“The government is trying to skirt around the overwhelming opposition to C-2 by repackaging it as something new. But C-12 leaves intact the measures to block refugee hearings, impose arbitrary retroactive one-year bars, and grant ministers mass immigration status-cancellation powers,” said Karen Cocq of the Migrant Rights Network. “Prime Minister Carney is showing that his government continues to be aligned with conservative, Trump-like anti-migrant sentiment. But civil society groups remain united in rejecting this agenda and calling for the withdrawal of both bills.”

Gender-violence advocates warn that the bill places survivors at even greater risk.

“Survivors of gender-based 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,” said Anuradha Dugal, Executive Director of Women’s Shelters Canada.

Drug policy experts say the bill doubles down on failed policing-first approaches in the middle of a deadly, toxic-drug crisis.

Nick Boyce of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition stated: “Bill C-12’s accelerated scheduling will trigger faster illegal drug market innovations, making Canada’s already-lethal unregulated drug supply even more volatile. This legislation will make the toxic unregulated drug crisis worse while wasting resources that should go to the things we need, like housing, healthcare, and harm reduction.”

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association says Bill C-12 represents a troubling shift that places immigration within a national security framework. By moving core immigration functions under Public Safety Canada, the legislation treats newcomers as potential security threats rather than people seeking protection and opportunity.

CILA argues that Public Safety’s mandate is focused on national security, crime prevention, and emergency readiness, not immigration program delivery or refugee determination. Allowing these functions to be redefined risks eroding accountability, fairness, and the foundational principle that immigrants and refugees are not inherently linked to security concerns.

The bill also grants excessively broad powers to the Governor in Council to cancel, vary, or suspend immigration documents such as permanent resident visas and PR cards. These sweeping authorities can be applied without established due process or independent review, using a vague “public interest” standard that is open to political misuse.

Of greatest concern is the retroactive cancellation of legally valid applications and the ability to target entire groups at once without notice or any opportunity to respond. CILA warns that this undermines the rule of law by stripping away the procedural safeguards that have long protected the rights of applicants and residents in Canada.

Public mistrust in the system is also rising, adding another layer of pressure to the national debate. A new Environics Institute survey of 2,004 Canadians shows confidence in immigration management continues to erode, with more than half of respondents now saying the country is accepting too many newcomers. While Canada has long relied on immigration for economic growth, the survey indicates this concern is fuelled less by cultural anxiety and more by a belief that government is mismanaging intake levels during a housing and affordability crisis.

Even so, a clear majority of Canadians continue to see the value immigrants bring to the country. Seven in ten agree that newcomers contribute positively to the national economy, and three-quarters say immigrants either improve their communities or cause no harm. These results suggest the public remains supportive of Canada’s multicultural identity and economic reliance on immigration, despite growing frustration with policy execution.

The shift in attitude becomes more pronounced when it comes to refugee claims and integration.

A rising number of Canadians believe many people who present themselves as refugees are not legitimate, and six in ten say newcomers are not adopting Canadian values. More than one-third connect immigration to increased crime or negative changes in demographic balance. These numbers, while not yet dominant views, have been trending upward for two consecutive years.

The survey also highlights a widening political divide, with immigration now standing as one of the most polarizing issues in the country.

The findings show sharply different attitudes emerging between supporters of opposing federal political parties, reinforcing that immigration has become a defining fault line in Canadian politics.