Author: Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Ottawa, Canada | March 24, 2026—Yesterday, the United Nations Human Rights Committee released a report rebuking Canada’s narrow interpretation of the “right to life” and called for action to save and protect lives.

Human rights groups, including the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN), the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC), the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), and HIV Legal Network welcomed the report, which follows the Committee’s review of Canada’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) earlier this month.

“This is a significant and necessary correction,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director of the National Right to Housing Network. “Canada has treated international human rights obligations as largely symbolic. The Committee has now made it clear: as a party to international human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Canada has made binding commitments that require real action—especially in the face of preventable deaths.” 

The UN Committee expressed surprise during the review when Canada’s delegation stated that Canada does not accept the Committee’s authoritative findings that the right to life imposes “positive obligations” on governments to ensure access to essential health care, address homelessness, the drug toxicity crisis, or climate change. 

Canada has not changed its position despite the Committee consistently affirming that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that threaten life. “Positive measures” require states to take proactive steps to guarantee rights, rather than merely refrain from violating them. This means tackling the root causes of preventable deaths, including homelessness, poverty, and the drug toxicity crisis. Notably, Canada had previously earned an “E” grade for rejecting a Committee decision affirming these principles in Toussaint v Canada. 

In their report, the United Nations Human Rights Committee highlighted: 

• Rising drug toxicity deaths: The Committee expressed particular concern about “the very high number of deaths related to drug toxicity,” which “affects persons experiencing homelessness and poverty and disproportionately affect Indigenous persons.” Drug policies must be primarily based on “public health, harm reduction and human rights considerations.” This acknowledgment reinforces the need for a coordinated, rights-based response to overlapping crises and effective access to services, including harm reduction services. This is of particular importance at a time where both Ontario and Alberta have just announced the closure of many supervised consumption services by mid-June. 
• Lack of implementation mechanisms: Critically, Canada currently has no effective domestic mechanism to receive, coordinate, and implement recommendations from international human rights bodies. Without such a mechanism, Canada is failing to meaningfully act on guidance from the international community—including recommendations that could help address homelessness and unregulated drug toxicity to prevent further loss of life. 
• Gaps in the legal system: Canada is not doing enough to ensure that its international human rights obligations are understood and applied within its own legal system. The Committee called on Canada to strengthen awareness of the ICCPR among judges, prosecutors, and lawyers so that these obligations are meaningfully considered in domestic court decisions—an issue with profound implications for cases involving housing, homelessness, access to essential health and social services, and encampments. 
• Encampment evictions and rights violations: The Committee expressed concern about the use of extraordinary legal measures, including the notwithstanding clause, an issue that has tremendous impact on people marginalized by policy. For example, provincial governments threaten encampment residents with eviction despite positive court decisions without providing access to safe and adequate housing alternatives. 

“We strongly support the Committee’s call for Canada to take ‘all necessary steps’ to address these concerns through effective mechanisms across federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and to ensure access to remedies through domestic courts,” says Beeta Senedjani from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, speaking on behalf of a coalition of human rights groups. “We also endorse the call for Canada to establish a national mechanism to monitor implementation and to ensure that individuals can seek enforcement of the Committee’s decisions.” 

These recommendations build on the Committee’s longstanding position that the right to life requires governments to take positive measures to provide access without delay to shelter, social housing programs, and health care—a principle reaffirmed in its General Comment No. 36 and reinforced in the current review.

“We call on the federal government to respond urgently and meaningfully to the Committee’s findings,” says Biss. “We specifically await a response from Canadian Heritage Minister Marc Miller, Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, and Health Minister Marjorie Michel outlining how Canada will fulfill its obligations to international human rights law and the right to life.” 

“The message from the Committee is clear,” says Senedjani. “Canada cannot continue to deny its responsibilities while people are dying preventable deaths. The right to life must include the right to live with dignity—and that starts with ensuring access to adequate housing and lifesaving health services.” 

-30- 

For further background: 

• UN Human Rights Committee – Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada (March 23, 2026)
• VIDEO – UN Human Rights Committee ICCPR Periodic Review of Canada
• Press Release March 4, 2026: Canada Challenged at United Nations Over Narrow Interpretation of Right to Life
• NGO Joint Statement Urging Review of Canada’s Position on Positive Obligations Under Article 6 (the Right to Life)

Media Contact: 

Jessica Tan 
Communications Lead 
National Right to Housing Network (NRHN) 

Email: [email protected] 
Phone: 613-621-4575 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 4, 2026 | Geneva —   Today in Geneva, United Nations Human Rights Committee members expressed surprise at Canada’s claim that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not require governments to take positive measures to protect life when it is at risk. 

In a joint statement ahead of the Committee’s review of Canada’s ICCPR compliance, human rights groups had called on the Committee to press Canada to accept that the right to life requires governments to take positive measures to address systemic conditions that place lives at risk. These conditions include homelessness, lack of access to essential healthcare, toxic drug deaths, violence against Indigenous women and girls, food insecurity, unsafe water, inadequate disability supports, and climate change. 

“In case after case, Canadian governments argue that even when people are dying, they have no constitutional duty to act,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director of the National Right to Housing Network. “The right to life means more than simply refraining from harm. It requires governments to prevent foreseeable loss of life.” 

The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors Canada’s compliance with the ICCPR, which guarantees the “inherent right to life” in Article 6. This is the first time the committee has reviewed Canada since 2015. The Committee has consistently affirmed that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that threaten life. “Positive measures” require states to take proactive steps to guarantee rights, rather than merely refrain from violating them.  

Today, committee members questioned Canada’s restrictive interpretation of the right to life, which includes denying any obligation to ensure access to health care when life is at risk.  Committee members further raised concerns about Canada’s reliance on punitive responses to drug use and homelessness rather than addressing serious risks to life.  Committee members referred to the Committee’s General Comment No. 36 (2018), which affirms that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that may threaten life, including inadequate health care, homelessness, toxic drug deaths and environmental degradation. Canada has rejected this interpretation in its submissions to the Committee and in litigation before domestic courts. 

Domestically, Canada has opposed arguments invoking positive rights made under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asserting that governments are not legally required to take positive measures—even where evidence shows that lives are in foreseeable danger. Canada has made these arguments in cases where individuals have invoked their right to life in response to homelessness, denial of health care, climate inaction, or the closure of supervised consumption sites.  

“Canada’s refusal to fully uphold the right to life has allowed for thousands of preventable deaths across the country,” says Beeta Senedjani of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “We are hopeful the committee will hold Canada to account and spur the changes we need to ensure all people in Canada can be healthy and safe.”   

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

• Affirm that the right to life requires positive measures to protect life, consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence; 

• Review and revise its domestic litigation positions to ensure consistency with its international human rights obligations; 

• Implement the Committee’s Views in Toussaint v. Canada; and 

• Ensure access to effective remedies for systemic violations of the right to life. 

“Courts in Canada have held that international human rights laws are not abstract, aspirational principles,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director for the HIV Legal Network. “The Charter is presumed to provide protections as outlined in the international human rights treaties it has ratified.” 

The full joint statement is available here.

— 30 — 

Media Contact: 
 
Jessica Hannon  
[email protected]  
604-341-5005 

BACKGROUNDER 

Canada’s Position on Positive Obligations Under Article 6 (Right to Life) 
NGO Joint Statement – Summary of Key Issues 

1. The Legal Issue 

Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the inherent right to life. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has clarified — beginning with General Comment No. 6 (1982) and reaffirmed in General Comment No. 36 (2018) — that this right requires positive measures to address systemic conditions that pose foreseeable threats to life. 

These include environmental degradation, homelessness, hunger, substance use, and the denial of essential deprivation of essential health care and public services. 

In Toussaint v Canada (2018), the Committee applied this interpretation to Canada, finding that denying essential health care to an irregular migrant exposed her to a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, in violation of Article 6.  The Committee directed Canada to prevent similar violations in the future by ensuring access to essential health care where life is at risk. 

2. Canada’s Position 

Canada has: 

• Rejected the Committee’s interpretation that Article 6 requires positive measures addressing socio-economic conditions; 
• Stated it does not accept that the right to life includes a right to live with dignity where this might entail socio-economic obligations; 
• Declined to implement the Views in Toussaint because it does not agree with the Committees findings 
• Advanced arguments in domestic litigation, asserting that the right to life in section 7 of the Charter does not impose positive obligations to provide life-saving benefits or address systemic threats to life. 

This position, when upheld by courts, has meant that individuals whose right to life under international law have been violated have no effective remedies under the Canadian Charter.   Canada has an obligation to ensure access to effective remedies, requiring that the Charter of Rights be interpreted consistently with Canada’s obligations under international human rights law. 

3. Systemic Impacts 

The consequences of rejecting positive obligations under the right to life are evident across multiple areas: 

Homelessness 
Deaths among people experiencing homelessness are rising, with significantly reduced life expectancy. 

Essential Health Care 
Irregular migrants lack access to essential health care necessary to protect their lives. Lack of access to mental health services remains a systemic problem, with suicide a leading cause of death among youth. Indigenous peoples experience markedly reduced life expectancy and unmet health needs. 

Substance Use 
Canada’s criminal laws make the unregulated drug supply more unpredictable, contaminated and potent, driving thousands of foreseeable, preventable deaths annually. Meanwhile, governments continue to argue that they have no obligation to provide, fund, or ensure the availability of proven lifesaving services to protect the right to life, including supervised consumption or safe supply. 

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 
Indigenous women and girls face disproportionate rates of homicide. Most Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry remain unimplemented. 

Disability Supports 
Inadequate social supports leave some persons with disabilities seeking Medical Assistance in Dying due to poverty and deprivation rather than irremediable suffering. 

Water and Sanitation 
Dozens of long-term drinking water advisories remain in First Nations communities. 

Food Insecurity 
Approximately one in four people in Canada live in food-insecure households, a condition linked to premature mortality. 

Climate Change 
Canada is not on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets and is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and wildfires have already resulted in documented loss of life and serious health impacts. 

4. What the Coalition Is Requesting 

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

1. Publicly affirm that the right to life in Article 6 requires positive measures to address systemic threats to life; 
2. Align its domestic litigation positions with its international human rights obligations; 
3. Implement the Committee’s views in cases involving the right to life that have been denied effective remedies 

Le français suit 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Blocked From Testifying, Civil Society Groups Urge Withdrawal of Bill C-12 Citing Threats to Human Rights and to Fundamental Justice

OTTAWA, Nov. 24, 2025 – A broad coalition of groups from across Canada is sounding an urgent alarm in advance of a critical parliamentary vote on Bill C-12. 

The bill would open the door to discrimination and violations of human rights and due process in Canada’s immigration system, authorize sharing of sensitive personal immigration information, and expand dangerous approaches to drug policy. Yet it is being pushed through parliament with minimal debate while those that will be impacted by its sweeping changes are locked out of the process. 

“This deeply concerning and highly controversial legislation will put many refugees in danger, risking their return to persecution in violation of rights protected under the Charter and international law,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Refugees. “And yet the bill is moving at break neck speed through Parliament while those with expertise and lived experience who want to advise on its dangers are shut out of the process. Neither the law nor the public interest is being served.”

The bill will deny many refugees access to fair and independent assessment and full appeal of their claims by the Immigration and Refugee Board because of arbitrary time limits and exclusions. This approach will not streamline Canada’s processing of refugee claims, but will lead to lower quality decisions while shifting backlogs to our already overburdened Federal Courts and to IRCC. 

The bill will also compound harm arising from the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which abandons many refugees to the U.S. immigration system at a time when well documented human rights violations have become the dominant feature of that system. 

”Bill C-12 would deny protection to vulnerable people irrespective of changes to their personal circumstances or political conditions back home. So many people like me, who sought safety here and have made lives here, would be shut out by this Bill. This isn’t just policy, it’s people’s lives,” said Tonny Muzira, Co-Founder & Director of Advocacy and Partnerships Centre for Black Development Options Canada. “Canada cannot turn its back on those seeking safety.”

Under Bill C-12, the government will also be able to cancel or suspend immigration documents and applications based on an undefined assessment of the “public interest”. This power grants dangerous discretionary power to the government without any individualized assessment or procedural safeguards.

“The bill sets up open-ended powers with little thought to the consequences and inevitable abuse”, said Louis-Philippe Jannard, of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI). “We haven’t seen such broad, discretionary powers in our immigration system since the 1970’s, when their abuse led to rampant discrimination and fatal decisions.” 

Bill C-12 would also authorize the government to share highly sensitive immigration information with few limitations. This includes changes in gender identity and the status of any refugee claimants, exposing vulnerable people in Canada to severe risk. 

“Broad dissemination of sensitive personal information can place migrants and refugees at significant risk of discrimination and persecution in Canada and abroad”, said Tamir Israel, Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program. “Despite this significant potential for abuse, Bill C-12 lacks minimum safeguards like the need to ensure information sharing is necessary and proportionate.”

Bill C-12 also doubles down on prohibition-based drug policy that has demonstrably failed to protect public health and safety. 

“Instead of funding affordable housing and other health and social supports, Canada is supporting U.S.-led militarized drug enforcement,” said Nick Boyce, from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “If Canada follows this path, it will be complicit in violations of international human rights law.”

In disregard of the dire risks posed by this legislative proposal, the bill has been fast-tracked and received minimal consideration in Parliament. It is scheduled for a final vote by the Standing Committee on Public Safety tomorrow—just three weeks after its study of the bill began. 

Despite the highly attenuated timeline, dozens of refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, labour organizations, health advocacy groups, representatives of the Black community, gender based violence groups, legal professional bodies, drug policy groups and others requested to speak at committee hearings but were denied. They have also submitted briefs expressing concern regarding Bill C-12’s consequences. 

These groups were largely absent from committee proceedings and MPs will not have the time to consider the long list of concerns raised by these submissions. In contrast, MPs heard repeatedly from border and policing agencies and officials. The end result is that the voices of those most impacted by Bill C-12 have not been heard.

“MPs and the public should be extremely concerned that the government is fast-tracking legislation that will only multiply the possibility of discrimination, exploitation, and violations of human rights,” said Karen Cocq of the Migrant Rights Network. “ This government got elected promising to reject Trump-style politics, but Bill C-12 is the opposite of that. This bill cannot be fixed, it must be withdrawn.”

– 30 –

Media contact:

Jessica Hannon, Director of Communications
[email protected]

Watch the press conference here.

Images from the Ottawa, ON press conference featuring in-person speakers Nick Boyce, Gauri Sreenivasan and Karen Cocq, and Zoom speakers Louis-Philippe Jannard, Tonny Muzira and Tamir Israel.

---

POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE

Des organisations de défense des droits sonnent l’alarme à la veille d’un vote crucial sur le projet de loi C-12

Empêchés de témoigner, des groupes de la société civile demandent le retrait du projet de loi C-12 en invoquant des menaces aux droits humains et aux principes de justice fondamentale.

OTTAWA, 24 novembre 2025 – Une large coalition pancanadienne d’organisations sonne l’alarme à la veille d’un vote crucial à la Chambre des communes sur le projet de loi C-12.

Le projet de loi ouvrirait la porte à la discrimination, aux atteintes aux droits humains et au non-respect de principes d’application régulière de la loi au sein du système canadien d’immigration, il autoriserait le partage d’informations personnelles sensibles en matière d’immigration et approfondirait des approches dangereuses relatives aux politiques sur les drogues. Le gouvernement accélère toutefois son étude au parlement, avec des débats limités, alors que les personnes et les groupes qui subiront les effets de ces changements majeurs ne sont pas entendus.

« Cette proposition législative profondément inquiétante et controversée plongera plusieurs personnes réfugiées dans des situations dangereuses, à risque de retour vers la persécution, en violation des droits protégés par la Charte canadienne et le droit international », affirme Gauri Sreenivasan, codirectrice générale du Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés. « Cependant, le projet de loi avance à vitesse grand V au Parlement, pendant que celles et ceux qui ont l’expertise et le vécu et qui veulent mettre en garde les parlementaires contre les dangers qu’il présente sont exclus du processus. Cela ne sert ni la loi ni l’intérêt public. »

Le projet de loi privera plusieurs personnes réfugiées d’un examen juste et indépendant de leur demande et des mécanismes d’appel de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (CISR) en raison de restrictions temporelles et d’exclusions arbitraires. Cette approche n’améliorera pas le processus d’examen des demandes d’asile, mais minera plutôt la qualité des décisions tout en déplaçant les arriérés de la CISR vers IRCC et vers la Cour fédérale, qui est déjà surchargée.

Ce projet de loi aggravera également les préjudices qui découlent de l’Entente canado-américaine sur les tiers pays sûrs, qui abandonne plusieurs personnes au système américain d’immigration, à un moment où des atteintes aux droits humains sont documentées et où elles sont devenues une caractéristique fondamentale de ce système.

« Le projet de loi C-12 refuserait la protection à des personnes vulnérables, peu importe les changements à leur situation personnelle ou à la situation politique dans leur pays d’origine. Il y a tellement de personnes qui, comme moi, sont venues ici chercher la sécurité et refaire leur vie, et qui seraient exclues par ce projet de loi. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de politiques publiques, mais de la vie de ces personnes, » déclare Tonny Muzira, cofondateur et directeur du plaidoyer et des partenariats du Centre for Black Development Options Canada.

Avec le projet de loi C-12, le gouvernement aura également le pouvoir d’annuler ou de suspendre des documents ou demandes d’immigration sur la base d’une évaluation non définie de « l’intérêt public ». Ce projet de loi octroie au gouvernement un pouvoir discrétionnaire dangereux, sans aucun examen individuel ou garanties procédurales.

« Le projet de loi met en place de vastes pouvoirs discrétionnaires, avec peu de réflexions quant à leurs conséquences et aux abus qui en découleront inévitablement, » soutient Louis-Philippe Jannard, de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. « D’aussi larges pouvoirs discrétionnaires n’existent plus dans notre système d’immigration depuis les années 1970, pouvoirs qui laissaient alors place à des décisions largement discriminatoires et aux conséquences parfois funestes. »

Le projet de loi C-12 autorisera le gouvernement à partager des informations très sensibles contenues dans les dossiers d’immigration, et ce, avec très peu de balises. Cela comprend des changements à l’identité de genre ou le statut de toute personne en demande d’asile, mettant à risque des personnes vulnérables au Canada.

« La large diffusion d’informations personnelles sensibles peut mettre les personnes migrantes et réfugiés à risque de discrimination et de persécution au Canada et ailleurs, » martèle Tamir Israel, directeur du programme Vie privée, surveillance et technologies de l’Association canadienne des libertés civiles. « Malgré le grand potentiel d’abus, le projet de loi C-12 ne contient pas de garanties minimales comme l’exigence de s’assurer que le partage d’informations est nécessaire et proportionnel. »

Le projet de loi C-12 renforce aussi une politique relative aux drogues basée sur la prohibition qui n’a manifestement pas permis de protéger la santé et la sécurité publiques.

« Plutôt que de financer le logement abordable et d’autres mesures sociales et de santé, le Canada soutient la lutte antidrogue militarisée menée par les États-Unis », affirme Nick Boyce, de la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues. « Si le Canada poursuit dans cette voie, il pourrait se retrouver complice de violations du droit international des droits humains. »

Sans tenir compte des risques considérables qu’il pose, le projet de loi a suivi un processus accéléré et n’a fait l’objet que d’un examen minimal au Parlement. Le vote final du Comité permanent de la Sécurité publique et nationale est prévu demain – seulement trois semaines après que l’étude du projet de loi ait débuté.

Malgré de très courtes échéances, des douzaines d’organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, d’organisations de défense des droits humains, d’organisations syndicales, de groupes du milieu de la santé, de représentant-e-s de la communauté noire, de groupes de lutte contre la violence basée sur le genre, d’instances de professionnel-le-s du droit, de groupes sur les politiques en matière de drogues et autres ont demandé à être entendus lors des audiences tenues par les comités, mais cela leur a été refusé. Ils ont aussi déposé des mémoires exprimant leurs préoccupations quant aux conséquences du projet de loi C-12.

Ces groupes ont donc été largement absents des débats des comités et les député-e-s n’auront pas le temps de prendre en considération la longue liste d’inquiétudes soulevées dans leurs mémoires. À l’inverse, les député-e-s ont entendu de façon répétée des représentants d’agences frontalières et policières. Il en résulte que les voix des personnes qui souffriront le plus des effets du projet de loi C-12 n’ont pas été entendues.

« Les député-e-s et le public devraient s’inquiéter au plus haut point du fait que le gouvernement accélère l’étude d’une proposition législative qui ne fera que multiplier les possibilités de discrimination, d’exploitation et d’atteintes aux droits humains, » dénonce Karen Cocq, du Migrant Rights Network. « Ce gouvernement a été élu en promettant de rejeter les politiques d’inspiration trumpiste, mais le projet de loi C-12 est à l’opposé de ces promesses. Rien ne pourrait rendre ce projet de loi acceptable, il doit être retiré ».

– 30 –

Contacts médias :

Jessica Hannon, Direction des communications
[email protected]

Regardez la conférence de presse ici.

Le français suit 

Blocked From Testifying, Civil Society Groups Demand Withdrawal of C-12 Citing Threats to Human Rights and Lack of Due Process and Oversight 

WHAT: Press Conference – Coalition of Civil Society Organizations Calls for Withdrawal of Bill C-12 

WHEN: Monday, November 24, 2025 at 10:00 AM EST 

WHERE: 

• In Person: Room 135-B, West Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa  

• Online: Contact [email protected] for Zoom link 

WHO: 

• Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees 

• Tamir Israel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association 

• Louis-Philippe Jannard, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI), Front Commun Contre le Projet de Loi C-12 

• Nick Boyce, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition 

• Tonny Muzira, Centre for Black Development Options Canada 

• Karen Cocq, Spokesperson, Migrant Rights Network 

OTTAWA – A broad coalition of civil society organizations from across Canada will hold a press conference to denounce their exclusion from deliberations on Bill C-12 and demand its withdrawal. Bill C-12 is a sweeping law that would expand deportation powers, gut refugee protections, ramp up information-sharing with foreign governments, and doubles down on enforcement and militarized approaches to drug use. The Public Safety Committee is doing clause-by-clause review and voting on amendments on November 25, after which C-12 will go back to the House for third and final reading. 

Despite applications from dozens of refugee, migrant, civil liberties, Black community, health, and drug policy organizations, only three groups were invited to testify. Meanwhile, MPs repeatedly heard from border and policing agencies — shutting out the very communities most impacted by Bill C-12. 

While the government has kept separate some controversial surveillance and privacy provisions in their original Bill C-2, civil liberties, migrant and refugee rights, and drug policy organizations remain deeply concerned about the threat to human rights represented by Bill C-12. These include: 

• Allowing sharing of immigration information with foreign governments, including the U.S. and potentially authoritarian states from which migrants are fleeing persecution; 

• Abandoning of refugee obligations under the Charter and international law, denying refugee hearings to those who have been in Canada over a year and from the US —regardless of whether personal or home country circumstances have changed, including disproportionate harm to survivors of gender-based violence; 

• Granting the government broad discretionary powers to cancel, suspend and change immigration applications and increase deportations without adequate due process; 

• Further criminalization and militarization of Canada’s approach to drug use that is not founded in evidence or best practices. 

Remarks will be delivered in English and French, interviews will be available in English and French.  

For media inquiries, contact: Karen Cocq, Migrant Rights Network 

---

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS 

Des groupes de défense des droits lancent un avertissement urgent avant un vote final sur le projet de loi C-12  

Des groupes de la société civile qui ont été empêchés de témoigner demandent le retrait du projet de loi C-12, en raison de menaces aux droits humains et de l’absence de procédure adéquate et de mécanismes de contrôle appropriés 

QUOI: Conférence de presse – Une coalition d’organisations de la société civile demande le retrait du projet de loi C-12 

QUAND: Lundi, 24 novembre 2025 à 10h  

OÙ:  

• En personne: local 135-B, édifice de l’Ouest, Colline Parlementaire, Ottawa 

• En ligne: contactez [email protected] pour le lien Zoom 

QUI: 

• Gauri Sreenivasan, codirectrice générale, Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés 

• Tamir Israel, Association canadienne des libertés civiles 

• Louis-Philippe Jannard, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, Front commun du Québec contre le projet de loi C-12 

• Nick Boyce, Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues 

• Tonny Muzira, Centre for Black Development Options Canada 

• Karen Cocq, porte-parole, Migrant Rights Network 

OTTAWA – Une large coalition pancanadienne d’organisations de la société civile tiendra une conférence de presse pour dénoncer leur exclusion des consultations relatives au projet de loi C-12 et pour demander son retrait. Le projet de loi C-12 ratisse large et élargirait les pouvoirs de renvoi, amoindrirait les protections pour les personnes réfugiées, faciliterait le partage d’informations avec des gouvernements étrangers et renforcerait une approche d’inspiration policière et militaire quant à l’utilisation de drogues. Le Comité sur la Sécurité publique et nationale procèdera à l’étude article par article et au vote sur les amendements le 25 novembre, après quoi le projet de loi C-12 sera renvoyé à la Chambre des communes pour la troisième et dernière lecture. 

Malgré les demandes de douzaines d’organisations des milieux des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, des droits et libertés, des communautés noires, de la santé et des politiques relatives aux drogues, seuls trois groupes ont été invités à témoigner. Pendant ce temps, les député-e-s ont entendu de façon répétée des agences policières et frontalières – excluant les communautés les plus affectées par le projet de loi C-12. 

Alors que le gouvernement a laissé de côté certaines dispositions controversées relatives à la surveillance et à la vie privée dans le projet de loi C-2, des organisations de défense des droits et libertés, de défense des droits des personnes migrantes et réfugiées et des politiques relatives aux drogues s’inquiètent profondément des menaces aux droits humains contenues dans le projet de loi C-12: 

• Permettre le partage d’informations relatives à l’immigration avec des gouvernements étrangers, y compris les États-Unis et des États potentiellement autoritaires d’où les personnes migrantes fuient la persécution; 

• Abandonner les obligations envers les personnes réfugiées qui découlent de la Charte canadienne et du droit international, dont le refus d’accès à une audience de détermination du statut de réfugié aux personnes qui sont au Canada depuis plus d’un an ou qui arrivent des États-Unis, peu importe les changements aux conditions personnelles ou dans les pays d’origine, incluant des préjudices disproportionnés pour les personnes survivantes de violence basée sur le genre; 

• Donner au gouvernement de vastes pouvoirs discrétionnaires pour annuler, suspendre ou modifier des demandes d’immigration et pour accroître les déportations sans procédures adéquates; 

Approfondir la criminalisation et la militarisation de l’approche canadienne relative à l’utilisation des drogues, ce qui n’est pas fondé sur la recherche ou les meilleures pratiques.   

Les prises de paroles se feront en anglais et en français et des entrevues seront possibles en anglais et en français.  

Pour les demandes médias, contactez Karen Cocq, Migrant Rights Network