Concerns Regarding Bill C-12, the Strengthening of Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act

February 14, 2026

As of early February 2026, Bill C-12, the Strengthening of Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, has passed the House of Commons but has not yet fully passed into law.  The bill passed the House of Commons in December 2025 and is currently undergoing the Senate stage.  The bill has faced numerous criticism from hundreds of organizations including refugee advocacy groups and human rights groups such as Amnesty International Canada, Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as the bill limits access to fair refugee hearings and provides broad power to cancel permits.  The bill did not receive appropriate consideration in the House and there was a lack of proper communication from various stakeholders that work with refugee claimants in Canada. 

Unfortunately, Bill C-12 does not remedy the legal and rights concerns that were raised about Bill C-2. Immigration and refugee law concerns still persist and are intensified in Bill C-12.  For example, Bill C-12 limits access to refugee hearings, imposes retroactive and arbitrary deadlines on protection claims, and serves to expand ministerial powers to cancel immigration status.  These proposed measures conflict with the principles of refugee law, procedural fairness, and Canada’s legacy as a welcoming country.  The proposed measures seem politically motivated rather than evidence-based and was designed to align to external political pressure. 

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) has argued that Bill C-12 threatens to overwhelm both the Federal Court of Canada and Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (IRCC), and risks deporting refugee claimants to harm in their home country.  Bill C-12 adds two new categories of persons ineligible to have their claim determined by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB): (1) persons who claim more than one year after their first entry to Canada (after June 24, 2020) and (2) persons who claim more than 14 days after entering Canada if their entry was irregular. 

Bill C-12 is significant and concerning because it introduces an exclusion from the refugee determination process based on the date of entry. This has never been implemented in Canada.  CARL argues that refugee protection must be grounded in international legal obligations not to return people to countries where they may face danger, regardless of when they arrived in Canada.  There are numerous reasons why a person may not claim refugee protection immediately when they arrive in Canada.  They may not understand the immigration and legal requirements in Canada due to language barriers or there may be changes to one’s home country that may result in new fear of persecution.  The bill will also disproportionately affect gender-based violence survivors by undermining their ability to seek protection when fleeing violence, increasing their legal and personal risk.  For example, imagine a mother and survivor of domestic violence who arrives in Canada in the spring of 2024 may be busy navigating the complex new system of enrolling her children in school and ensuring they have shelter.  She may suffer from depression, PTSD, and have limited knowledge of English.  Her legitimate “delay” in claiming means that she will no longer have access to a refugee hearing under Bill C-12. 

Instead, ineligible applicants will be sent to a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), which are an inadequate substitute for refugee claim proceedings.  PRRAs are simply paper-based applications where the decision is determined by an IRCC officer.  Unfortunately, in the PRRA stream, there is no right to a hearing, no witnesses, no administrative appeal, and no stay of removal if the Federal Court of Canada is reviewing the negative determination.  This results in increased deportation to a country that may be dangerous.  Unlike the IRB, the PRRA stream is not designed to handle vulnerable claimants such as unaccompanied minors or those with mental health issues due to limited resources.  In addition, negative PRRA decisions cannot be challenged at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which means claimants who want to challenge their negative decision will need to do so at the Federal Court of Canada, which is already overwhelmed with cases.  The RAD serves to assist the Federal Court by screening out flawed refugee decisions. 

CARL has proposed recommendations to alleviate the concerns raised by Bill C-12.  First, allow exemptions so claimants who first came to Canada as minors, survivors of gender-based violence, and other vulnerable claimants may claim refugee protection regardless of the date of entry into Canada.  Second, the deadline should not apply based on a claimant’s most recent entry to Canada.  The current bill is too broad and may act to bar claimants who had no fear when they first visited Canada.  For example, a child who came to Canada on a vacation may be banned from a refugee hearing even if the basis of their claim arose many years later.  Third, the “clock” should reset if the conditions change in a claimant’s home country.  Fourth, people who are subject to the new ineligibilities should be provided with a mandatory hearing to maintain procedural fairness in the decision making process.  The hearing must be part of their PRRA application.  Fifth, people subject to new ineligibilities should be afforded a statutory stay of removal pending an application for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada to challenge their negative PRRA decision.  

Overall, the significant immigration concerns raised by Bill C-12 center around the new ineligibility provisions that deny individuals the right to an oral hearing before the IRB if they make their refugee claim more than one year after arriving in Canada or 14 days after entering irregularly.  This undermines the principle of non-refoulement and disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, including survivors of gender-based violence and LGBTQIA+ individuals.  The PPRA process that is offered to those who are ineligible for an oral hearing lacks the procedural protections of the IRB, including the right to an appeal, which will increase litigation and backlogs at the Federal Court of Canada.  Also, people who are from moratorium countries, where removals are suspended due to safety and insecurity concerns, will be left in legal limbo without the ability to make a refugee claim or access status in Canada.

In addition, Bill C-12 allows for the mass cancellation and suspension of immigration documents and applications without adequate safeguards, which may potentially lead to discrimination of vulnerable people.  The vague definition of “public interest” is also significantly concerning and could enable arbitrary decisions that negatively impact refugees and migrants.  The bill broadens the government’s ability to share personal information of migrants, raising significant safety concerns, especially for people at risk of persecution based on their identity.  The new bill has many problematic aspects that mirror the U.S. immigration system and violates international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. 

Written by Katrina Sriranpong