In 2012, Canada made regulatory changes and adopted legislations amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These pieces of legislation contain a number of measures which include: expedited refugee claim hearings, reduced procedural guarantees and reviews, growing use of socioeconomic deterrents, and increased immigration detention. Drawing on a qualitative research, this article explores the unintended results and counter-productive effects of these new measures, with a particular focus on their practical and human rights implications. It is argued that the government has used the language of security to rationalise the imposition of disproportionately harsh treatment on asylum seekers. Unsurprisingly, the new measures have resulted in violations of asylum seekers’ human rights. In addition, they have had a detrimental impact on third parties involved in the refugee protection system, such as legal counsels and service providers. Finally, it is argued that there is a correlation between the new refugee measures and the increase in irregular migration in Canada.

Le but de cet article, qui porte sur la détention des demandeurs d’asile au Canada, est de mettre en relief les logiques convergentes entre le traitement pénal et le traitement administratif de l’immigration. Nous démontrons que la « criminalisation » actuelle des demandeurs d’asile facilite la mise en oeuvre de politiques publiques de plus en plus répressives à leur égard, notamment à travers un recours accru à la détention. Nous nous intéressons aussi à la détention des demandeurs d’asile dans les prisons provinciales, alors que le motif de la détention est purement « administratif » (c.-à-d. les demandeurs d’asile ne sont pas des personnes présumées ou reconnues coupables de délits) : ce phénomène n’est pas marginal, puisqu’il concerne un demandeur d’asile sur trois au Canada. Nous montrons alors que l’institution carcérale exerce, au même titre que les « camps d’étrangers », une fonction de ségrégation spatiale, juridique et sociale ayant pour objectif de marquer les demandeurs d’asile comme une population d’« indésirables ».

For many people who have made Canada their home but have uncertain legal status and are ineligible to apply for permanent residence through other channels, the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application is the only available pathway to permanent residence and stability in Canada. Applications for permanent residence on H&C grounds have become a key component of Canada’s immigration system and yet this pathway remains under-researched. Drawing upon extensive desk research and the preliminary analysis of interview data, this article addresses this gap in the scholarship by offering a critical analysis of the H&C program. In it, we begin by discussing the specific challenges that this highly discretionary decision-making process poses for vulnerable applicants and suggest areas for improvement. We then focus on H&C applications and decisions that directly impact children and explain why a change in the Canadian application of the best interests of the child principle is required. Finally, we consider two recent trends in H&C cases: the sharp increase in the number of applications and the increasingly high rates of refusal. Throughout this analysis, we highlight the negative repercussions the current system has on the most vulnerable categories of migrants and the need to better understand these phenomena.