Canadian Advocates Rally Against Bill C-2 for Immigration Reform

First, identified linkable resources in order of appearance:
1. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (first occurrence in body: “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada”)
2. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (in heading “Policy provisions…” — but skip headings per rules)
3. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (later occurrence near end: “see the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.” — already linked)

Now I will add up to 5 .gov links, linking only the first mention of the resource in the article body text and preserving all existing content and links.

(PARLIAMENT HILL, CANADA) More than 300 civil society organizations gathered in Ottawa in June 2025 to call for the full withdrawal of Bill C-2, the “Strong Borders Act,” saying the measure would erode rights and put vulnerable people at risk.

The coalition—spanning refugee rights groups, civil liberties advocates, women’s organizations, and migrant worker networks—framed the push as part of a broader immigration reform debate that’s gaining force ahead of Canada’s April 2025 federal election. Leaders stressed that their campaign is not about DACA—a U.S. 🇺🇸 policy for certain undocumented youth—but about stopping what they see as sweeping powers in Canadian law that would cut off hearings and cancel status without case-by-case review.

Karen Cocq, a spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, warned the bill would “expand a deportation machine that will put hundreds of thousands of people at risk.” She cited 1.2 million people unable to renew their permits this year due to recent immigration cuts, arguing that the bill’s new tools would make more people “face abuse, exploitation, and even death.” The coalition said the proposal reflects a move toward “Trump-style anti-immigrant policies,” language they used to describe the direction of the debate.

Advocates urged lawmakers to reject any approach that limits access to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and shuts the door on long-term residents with deep ties to the country.

Policy provisions drawing the most fire

At the heart of the opposition are provisions in Bill C-2 and the related Bill C-12. Advocacy groups identify three elements as especially problematic:

• Denial of hearings
  • People could lose the right to a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board if more than one year has passed since they first entered Canada.
  • Groups argue a rigid cut-off would ignore complex reasons people delay seeking protection—such as fear, trauma, or confusion about legal options.
• Cancellation of immigration status
  • The government would gain broad authority to cancel valid documents, including permanent residency, without individualized evaluation.
  • Lawyers and service providers warn this could affect workers, students, and families who followed rules but now face paperwork gaps due to processing backlogs and policy shifts.
• Impact on survivors of violence
  • Organizations supporting survivors of gender-based violence raised alarm about safety risks if status can be revoked quickly.
  • Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, said:
    > “Bill C-2 is an attack on the rights and safety of survivors of gender-based violence.”
  • Service providers worry survivors would be less likely to seek help if they fear losing status.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is the independent tribunal that decides refugee claims and certain appeals. Any law that limits access to this body would reshape how protection decisions are made, advocates said. For official context about the tribunal’s role and processes, see the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Wider reform demands before the election

The Parliament Hill protest dovetailed with a national call from the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia, backed by more than 90 community and business groups, for a fairer, more responsive system.

Their core asks:
– Attract global talent to ease labor shortages.
– Support regularization for people already living and working in Canada.
– Push back against rising anti-immigrant rhetoric.
– Balance border management with dignity, due process, and stability for families and employers.

Community advocates emphasized that, unlike DACA in the United States 🇺🇸, Canada’s legal framework gives the federal government tools to set status rules nationwide. They said Canada does not need a separate, temporary category defined by court settlement or executive action. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, public debates often reference DACA as shorthand for protecting long-settled residents, but the policies and legal authorities differ.

Canadian groups said their focus is on defending:
– Access to hearings,
– Fair review processes,
– Pathways to permanence—not creating a DACA-style program.

Impacts on employers, settlements, and frontline services

Employers who depend on international talent warned that sudden cancellations of status could disrupt workplaces and local economies. Settlement agencies reported long lines to renew work and study permits; additional uncertainty would strain families and schools.

Frontline workers described clients:
– Skipping medical care,
– Staying in unsafe jobs,
– Avoiding interaction with authorities out of fear.

They argued a blunt rule blocking hearings after one year would worsen these fears.

Critics linked Bill C-2 to enforcement-first agendas seen elsewhere. While some lawmakers argue faster removals will streamline the system, service providers counter that fair processes prevent costly mistakes. Their view: a stable process with documented reviews is ultimately faster because it reduces court challenges and emergency interventions.

Special concerns for survivors of gender-based violence

For survivors, timelines are often more complicated:
– Leaving an abuser can take months or years.
– Status insecurity is frequently used as a tool of control.
– If speaking up could trigger loss of status, survivors may stay silent.

Providers urged lawmakers to build in clear protections for survivors, including:
– Safe reporting mechanisms,
– Guarantees of individualized evaluation before any status decision.

Legal and administrative accountability

Lawyers watching the bills said proposals would shift power from independent decision-makers to administrative officers without the same safeguards. Their recommendations include:
– Preserving avenues for review, especially where removal could cause irreparable harm.
– Releasing clear public data on how many people would be affected by the one-year bar and the scope of any status cancellations.

The government has not released detailed guidance on how officers would apply new powers in hard cases—such as people with Canadian-born children or workers in critical sectors. Stakeholders stress that published standards matter because they determine whether a rule acts like a scalpel or a hammer. Without standards, families and employers cannot plan.

Advocacy demands and proposed fixes

Advocacy groups asked the government to address announced immigration cuts that increased backlogs and pressure on permit renewals. Their specific proposals include:
– Targeted measures to keep people in status while files move.
– Faster work authorization for those already here.
– More resources for legal aid.
– Preserving access to the Immigration and Refugee Board and other independent review mechanisms.

They warned that cutting off hearings won’t fix backlogs; it will “move the problem from the front door to the emergency room,” as one organizer put it.

The political question ahead

As the April 2025 election approaches, the central question for lawmakers is whether Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 will proceed in their current form or be rewritten to address due process concerns.

Advocacy groups say they will continue pressing for changes that:
– Protect access to hearings,
– Prevent sudden loss of status,
– Ensure smart border policy and fair protection procedures coexist.

Their argument: Canada can pursue safety and order while preserving dignity and due process—and past policy choices show both aims are achievable.