Immigration Measures Stay in Bill C-12 Despite Call For Removal

On this page you will find:

• Why senators kept immigration measures in Bill C-12
• Key concerns raised by the Senate social affairs committee
• Details of the one-year refugee claim rule
• New government powers over immigration documents
• What happens next in the legislative process

Senators on the national security committee have approved the immigration measures in Bill C-12 without amendment, despite a separate Senate committee calling for their full removal.

The decision keeps Parts 5 – 8 of the government’s border legislation intact. These sections deal with information sharing, asylum system reforms, new powers over immigration documents and new ineligibility rules for refugee claims.

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology had recommended removing these sections entirely after hearing from 35 witnesses and reviewing 36 written submissions. Many warned the measures could infringe on human rights, procedural fairness and privacy protections.

However, the national security committee, which holds amendment powers, rejected proposed changes and endorsed the bill as drafted by the House of Commons.

Government Defends Tougher Asylum Measures

Independent Senator Tony Dean read a letter from Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Immigration Minister Lena Diab defending the legislation.

The letter stressed bipartisan support, noting only a small number of MPs voted against the bill. It also cited comments from British Columbia Premier David Eby urging swift passage after alleged extortionists filed asylum claims in the province.

According to the ministers, asylum claims have dropped by one third in 2025 compared to 2024. They argued further measures are needed to deter misuse of the system, particularly as the government plans to reduce temporary visa volumes.

One-Year Refugee Claim Rule Stays

One of the most controversial provisions remains unchanged. Bill C-12 bars individuals from filing a refugee claim with the Immigration and Refugee Board if more than one year has passed since they first entered Canada after June 24, 2020.

The rule would apply retroactively.

Diab previously told senators that 37 per cent of asylum claims filed between June 3 and October 31, 2025 would be disallowed under this measure – roughly 19,000 of 50,000 applications.

Witnesses warned the rule could harm vulnerable individuals, including:

• Children brought to Canada at a young age
• People fleeing domestic violence
• Members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community
• Individuals from countries under conflict or moratorium on removals

Critics argued that the timing of entry has no connection to the legitimacy of a refugee claim. They also raised concerns that ineligible claimants would only have access to a paper-based pre-removal risk assessment instead of a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The social affairs committee recommended increasing the ineligibility window to five years from the most recent entry and removing retroactive provisions. Ontario Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak proposed a three-year rule tied to the most recent entry. Both proposals were rejected.

An amendment to exempt minors who first arrived with their parents also failed.

Expanded “Public Interest” Powers

Part 7 of the bill gives cabinet authority to cancel, suspend or modify immigration documents in the “public interest.” This could include permanent resident visas and permanent resident cards.

The House of Commons defined public interest broadly to include fraud, administrative error, public health, public safety and national security.

Al Zaibak proposed narrowing the definition to administrative errors only. Senators rejected the amendment and kept the broader language.

A separate amendment seeking greater parliamentary oversight of these powers was also defeated. The bill requires publication in the Canada Gazette outlining who is affected and why, but critics say this falls short of meaningful scrutiny.

Information Sharing Concerns

Part 5 introduces a new information-sharing regime under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Witnesses raised concerns about:

• Data exchanges between federal, provincial and foreign entities
• Risks to privacy and confidentiality
• Potential denial of services
• Application of the regime to permanent residents and naturalized citizens

The social affairs committee recommended excluding permanent residents and citizens from the regime and requiring review by the Privacy Commissioner. Those recommendations were not adopted.

Human Rights and Oversight Debate

Civil society groups, including the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International, warned that Parts 5 to 8 could create a two-tier asylum system and undermine due process.

Witnesses also called for a sunset clause and mandatory parliamentary review, citing potential Charter implications and Canada’s international human rights obligations.

The social affairs committee formally recommended removing Parts 5 – 8 in full. However, because it did not hold amendment authority, the final decision rested with the national security committee.

What Happens Next?

Bill C-12 faces a second reading vote deadline of February 26. The bill may still face debate in the Senate chamber, but as it stands, the immigration measures remain intact.

If passed without change, the legislation would significantly reshape Canada’s asylum process, expand executive authority over immigration documents and introduce new information-sharing powers across government.

FAQ