Immigration Minister Lena Diab told a Senate committee on February 12, 2026 that Bill C-12 would steer some asylum seekers into a process she said is “better for the applicants,” as legal groups and refugee advocates warned the legislation builds a two-tier system that limits access to in-person hearings.
Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, proposes barring certain asylum claims from referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board and routing them instead to a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, a mechanism more often associated with people facing removal after their claims fail.
Diab argued that when a person’s protection needs are clear, the PRRA route can produce quick approvals, describing that outcome to senators as “better for the applicants.”
Opponents including the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and Rainbow Railroad said the bill’s structure creates unequal treatment by design, because some claimants would lose the guarantee of an in-person hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The debate has sharpened as the Senate accelerates study of the bill. Senators have scheduled testimony in recent days, and the social affairs committee is working toward a February 24, 2026, amendment deadline at committee stage.
That deadline matters because committee stage is where senators can try to alter provisions before the bill moves forward, and testimony now becomes part of the record that lawmakers cite in arguing for or against changes.
The bill’s central change for refugee claims ties eligibility to filing timelines based on when someone first arrived in Canada. Claims filed more than 12 months after first arrival in Canada would not go to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the first arrival occurred post-June 24, 2020, and the person would instead be shifted into a PRRA process.
Bill C-12 also tightens timelines for people who enter via the U.S. land border between ports of entry. Those claimants must file within 14 days, or they too would be routed to PRRA rather than sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
In practice, that routing determines whether an applicant receives an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing or is assessed through a PRRA channel that critics characterize as offering less opportunity for an in-person proceeding. Supporters and critics disagree over whether moving cases in this way increases efficiency without undermining access to protection.
The legislation also expands ministerial discretion in several ways. One provision extends the minister’s authority to exempt nationals from certain countries from PRRA bars if conditions in their home countries change rapidly, creating a mechanism to allow access despite restrictions that would otherwise apply.
Another provision in the bill sets consequences for withdrawn claims. When the Minister determines a claim was withdrawn, the person becomes PRRA-ineligible for 12 months, unless judicial review is sought, which extends the timeline from that review’s denial.
Taken together, the measures would create different tracks for different claimants, depending on how and when they entered Canada and how quickly they applied. Critics have repeatedly framed that division as a two-tier system.
The Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International warned that the bill’s approach establishes unequal treatment by limiting access to in-person hearings for people they describe as at risk. They argued the structure would deny vulnerable groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals and domestic violence survivors, a guaranteed in-person Immigration and Refugee Board hearing when their claims fall into the categories diverted to PRRA.
Senator Paula Simons criticized the bill during second-reading remarks on February 5, 2026, calling the timelines unreasonable and warning they risk deportation of vulnerable refugees. Simons urged colleagues to avoid “xenophobia” and to maintain standards aligned with UNHCR, including appeal rights and removal stays.
The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association argued more broadly that the proposal threatens Canada’s legal commitments. The group described the changes as a “profound threat to human rights obligations” and as a shift away from the rule of law.
Civil liberties advocates also pointed to provisions that extend beyond refugee-claim timelines. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which testified on February 10, 2026, opposed what it described as broader bill elements, including Cabinet powers in Part 7 to suspend or terminate applications or documents on vague “public interest” grounds.
ICLMG also objected to expanded information and data-sharing in Part 5, warning it risks privacy for migrants, refugees and citizens. Those concerns have become part of the wider argument that Bill C-12 adds administrative powers while narrowing pathways to an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing for some claimants.
Rainbow Railroad condemned the proposed asylum restrictions, arguing they violate international human rights and the Canadian Charter. The organization called for the bill’s withdrawal or amendment.
Simons also cited the Canadian Council for Refugees in arguing that the provisions would disproportionately harm vulnerable refugees, a theme echoed by groups warning that the strict filing windows will not account for trauma, instability or practical barriers that can delay a claim.
The government has framed the legislation as a way to protect the system from abuse, alleviate pressures and deter misuse, including perceived efforts to bypass rules linked to the Safe Third Country Agreement, while still upholding Charter rights.
Supporters of the bill argue that faster, clearer screening helps concentrate resources on applicants who need protection and reduces incentives for people to use the asylum system as an end-run around existing rules. Critics respond that speed and deterrence should not come at the cost of procedural safeguards they say are central to fairness.
At the center of the dispute lies the gap between an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing and a PRRA-style assessment. The bill would direct some people away from the IRB entirely, reshaping how evidence is presented and evaluated and raising questions, pressed by opponents, about whether claimants diverted into PRRA can effectively make their case without the same kind of hearing forum.
Diab’s committee testimony on February 12, 2026 placed that disagreement in stark terms. She told senators that cases with clear protection needs would result in immediate PRRA approval, and she characterized that route as “better for the applicants.”
Senators and witnesses opposing the bill have treated the same structure as a warning sign, saying it creates a two-tier system by limiting in-person access to the Immigration and Refugee Board for people who miss the timelines, including those who file more than 12 months after first arrival in Canada or who cross the U.S. land border between ports of entry and fail to file within 14 days.
The Senate’s compressed calendar has added urgency on both sides. The February 24, 2026 deadline for amendments has drawn advocacy and expert testimony into a tighter window, with groups pressing senators to change or drop contested provisions as the committee compiles its record.
Advocacy organizations have also mobilized publicly as Bill C-12 advances. Migrant Rights Network said more than 200 organizations oppose the bill, urging lawmakers to stop it and warning it would create a “mass deportation machine.”
Bill C-12, Immigration and Refugee Board Face Criticism Over Two-Tier System
Bill C-12 seeks to reform Canada’s asylum system by redirecting some claimants to the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process instead of traditional IRB hearings. The government claims this increases efficiency, but critics argue it creates a two-tier system that lacks procedural safeguards. Strict filing deadlines for those entering from the U.S. border or residing in Canada for over a year have sparked fears of mass deportations and human rights violations.
