Two bills are currently on the table in Canada which have the potential to significantly alter the rights of asylum-seekers. Civil society groups have expressed significant opposition to the bills, but as Parliament continues to discuss, it remains unclear what will happen next.
This past June, the federal government introduced the C-2 Bill, nicknamed Canada’s “Strong Borders Act.” The bill included many measures targeting the rights of asylum seekers in Canada, arriving only six months after Trump’s inauguration in the neighbouring United States, raising the question of whether this increase is a response to recent US immigration policies. Following its tabling at the House of Commons, the bill faced significant backlash from numerous civil society groups, largely due to its impacts on the rights of refugee claimants. In response, the federal government presented a streamlined version, Bill C-12, on October third. While this new bill removes some contentious measures allowing for privacy invasions into the mail, it keeps all measures regarding the rights of refugees. Over 300 civil society groups have expressed concern, arguing that it is merely a “repackaged” version of C-2.
One of the greatest concerns about both bills is the new eligibility restrictions for asylum seekers. Under these proposed changes, anyone who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, and waited more than one year to make a refugee claim would automatically be considered ineligible. Similarly, those who cross the Canada–U.S. land border between official ports of entry and make their claim more than 14 days after arriving would be denied access to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Instead, they would be limited to a narrower process called the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). Once deemed illegible and considered “removal ready,” individuals would lose the right to a full hearing or appeal. A PRRA offers protection only if a person can prove they would face torture or death if deported.
Refugee advocacy groups say these proposals mark a profound shift in Canada’s asylum system. They see new deadlines and restrictions as arbitrary and harmful, particularly for those fleeing traumatic or unstable situations who may not immediately understand Canada’s asylum procedures or have access to legal counsel. The government, however, insists that these measures are necessary to “alleviate current burdens on the system.” Officials argue that too many people use the asylum process to extend their temporary stays in Canada or bypass regular immigration channels. In other words, the federal government’s position is that tightening access is a form of efficiency.
Bill C-12, introduced in October as a fix to C-2, does little to address these criticisms. According to a joint statement from Amnesty International, the Migrant Rights Network, and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), 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.” Many activists argue that the only meaningful difference between the two pieces of legislation is speed. Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the ICLMG, put it bluntly: “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.”
Since Trump took office, US migration policies have become increasingly restrictive, putting pressure on neighboring countries to follow suit. For many observers, Canada’s new border approach looks less like a domestic necessity and more like an effort to align with American priorities. Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, said that the bills are evidence that “Canada is moving closer to an American-style approach to migration control.” With the U.S. tightening immigration, there is an incentive for undocumented immigrants to flee to Canada in search of a safe haven. The threat of an increase in immigration inflows from the U.S. is one potential reason for closing the 14-day loophole.
Beyond eligibility, another major point of contention is the expansion of ministerial power. Both C-2 and C-12 would allow the Minister of Immigration to pause or revoke immigration applications in situations considered to affect the “public interest.” The troubling part, according to many critics, is that the term “public interest” is not defined anywhere in the legislation. Immigration Minister Lena Diab confirmed before a parliamentary committee that this was deliberate, explaining that it was “intentionally not defined” to allow maximum flexibility for the government “to respond in a range of unforeseen circumstances.” Numerous civil society groups including Amnesty International find this vagueness deeply concerning. Without a clear legal definition, “public interest” could be interpreted to justify almost anything, from the suspension of immigration processing during political crises to the mass cancellation of refugee documents. Unchecked discretion threatens the transparency and fairness of Canada’s immigration system.
The Department of Justice, for its part, maintains that Bill C-2 poses no threat to constitutional rights. Its official Charter statement found “no potential effects on Charter rights and freedoms.” Others argue that denying refugees access to hearings or penalizing them for irregular entry runs directly counter to Canada’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which explicitly forbids states from punishing asylum seekers for how they enter a country. Amnesty International called the government’s Charter statement “an exercise in denial,” arguing that these bills violate both international law and Canada’s own moral commitments.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has defended the government’s strategy of splitting the legislation into two parts, saying that it allows “some measures to pass swiftly while giving Canadians more time to evaluate other, more contentious ones.” Many activists see this as little more than a political tactic. By introducing C-12, the government appears responsive to criticism while still advancing the core of C-2 largely intact. The division of the bills, critics argue, creates the illusion of compromise without substantive change.
The debate around C-2 and C-12 reveals the growing tension between Canada’s self-image as a humanitarian refuge and the political reality of border control. While the government continues to speak the language of inclusion, the legislative details tell a different story. Limiting asylum eligibility and expanding ministerial discretion might make the system appear more efficient, but they also risk eroding the very principles of fairness and protection that have long defined Canada’s international reputation.
For those affected, these changes could mean losing access to a full refugee hearing. Under these new rules, many asylum seekers who cross irregularly from the United States or miss a deadline in the claimant process could lose their chance to have their case heard. As Parliament continues to debate both bills, the outcome will test both the government’s priorities and Canada’s broader moral compass. When the House of Commons resumes on November 17th, Canadians will be watching closely to see what happens next.
Edited by Sofia Gobin
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Kendall Fagan is a third-year student at McGill University currently pursuing a BA Honours in International Development and a minor in Economics.