(CANADA) — The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recommended on February 23, 2026 removing or significantly modifying the immigration-related sections of Bill C-12, the Canadian government’s border security legislation, raising new questions about how far cabinet and ministers should reach into the refugee system.
The report, obtained by The Canadian Press, urged changes to parts 5 to 8 of the bill after witnesses warned the measures could undermine rights protections and basic procedural fairness for people seeking safety in Canada.
Committee members pointed to concerns that the bill, as drafted, risks “executive overreach” by concentrating broad authority in cabinet, and could create unequal treatment inside the asylum process, the report said.
Bill C-12 aims to tighten border security rules, and the committee’s recommendations put the Senate in a position to reshape some of its most contested immigration provisions before the legislation advances.
Witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International, told senators the measures could lead to human rights violations and a lack of meaningful process for people affected by high-stakes decisions, the report said.
Those groups warned the bill risks creating a two-tier asylum system by denying in-person hearings to vulnerable claimants, a critique senators highlighted as they considered whether the bill’s approach fits Canada’s refugee obligations.
One major provision senators flagged would bar certain people from filing refugee claims if they arrived in Canada more than one year prior, a cutoff critics said could exclude people who remain at risk but did not file quickly.
A time-based bar can carry high consequences in a system where people may not immediately understand the process, may fear authorities, or may not be able to get legal help quickly, witnesses argued in their submissions as summarized in the report.
Senators also focused on language that would grant cabinet authority to cancel or modify immigration documents, including permanent residency cards, on “public interest” grounds that witnesses described as vague.
The breadth of “public interest” authority drew scrutiny because it can be hard for affected individuals to predict what conduct or circumstances might trigger government action, and because the decision can directly affect a person’s ability to stay in Canada.
The committee also took issue with the bill’s proposed retroactive timeline for refugee applications dating back to June 24, 2020, a feature senators rejected on fairness grounds.
Retroactive measures can change the rules after people have already acted, including filing claims or making life decisions based on the legal framework in place at the time, and senators treated that as a central procedural concern.
Alongside identifying the problems, the committee laid out specific changes it wants lawmakers to make if Bill C-12 proceeds.
The committee recommended extending the one-year refugee claim filing cutoff to five years, arguing that a longer window would reduce the risk of excluding people whose protection needs remain real but whose filings come later.
Senator Mobina Jaffer Diab cited estimated impacts in urging that change, saying the original limit would disallow 37% of claims filed between June 3 and October 31, 2025—approximately 19,000 out of 50,000 applications.
The committee also called for robust parliamentary oversight and a sunset clause to limit cabinet powers, reflecting concerns that broad authority, once granted, can be difficult to unwind without clear review mechanisms.
A sunset clause would force lawmakers to revisit the powers after a set period, rather than leaving them in place indefinitely, and the committee framed that as a check on executive action in an area with direct effects on people’s legal status.
On retroactivity, the committee recommended making changes effective only upon royal assent, not retroactively, setting a clear dividing line that would preserve the rules that applied before Parliament completes the legislative process.
That recommendation would align the bill’s operation with the standard expectation that people can rely on the law as it exists when they act, rather than facing new constraints imposed after the fact.
The panel also noted a near-term procedural deadline tied to Senate consideration, writing that the legislation requires a second-reading vote by February 26, 2026.
The Senate process now places different committees in different roles on the bill, complicating how quickly and in what form immigration-related changes can move forward.
The Senate National Security and Defence Committee holds responsibility for tabling amendments, while the Social Affairs committee focused on studying the immigration impacts, the report said.
That division means the panel that studied asylum and immigration consequences is not the committee that formally introduces the text changes senators may debate, pushing the bill into an inter-committee handoff as the Senate approaches its next votes.
A letter from ministers Diab and Marc Miller, the Immigration Minister, pointed to a recent shift in claims while still arguing for tougher measures.
The letter noted asylum claims dropped by one-third in 2025 compared to 2024 but said more action is needed, with no amendments proposed yet, according to the report.
The committee’s call to strip or rewrite parts 5 to 8 therefore sets up a direct test of whether the government will accept limits on the bill’s reach, or instead press to preserve tools it argues are necessary for border security objectives.
In its report, the committee treated procedural fairness as a practical issue, not an abstract one, because the measures at issue can determine whether a person gets a chance to present their case in a full hearing or faces a barrier at the start.
Witnesses warned that limiting access to in-person hearings, particularly for vulnerable claimants, could produce outcomes that turn more on a person’s timing or paperwork than on whether they face persecution or serious harm, the committee said.
The Canadian Bar Association’s concerns, as summarized in the report, landed within a broader argument that the refugee system needs consistent decision-making standards and clear rules that allow claimants to understand and respond to allegations or negative decisions.
Amnesty International’s warnings, also included in the committee’s accounting, added to the human rights critique by urging senators to consider whether the proposed powers and cutoffs could lead to outcomes inconsistent with fundamental protections.
The committee’s objections to cabinet discretion similarly centred on clarity and constraint, because the bill’s “public interest” language could allow decisions that are hard to challenge without more defined criteria and stronger oversight.
Even supporters of stronger border controls can disagree on where to set the line between speed and fairness, and the committee’s recommendations reflect a view that expanded power should come with built-in review and time limits.
Senators also raised broader alarms about concentrating authority in the executive branch in ways that can outlast a single government, especially when the affected population includes people whose ability to remain in Canada can turn on administrative decisions.
Senator Marilou McPhedran captured that concern in blunt terms, describing the bill’s powers as “dangerous.”
The committee’s report now feeds into the next stage of Senate deliberations, where senators will decide whether to adopt amendments that match the committee’s recommendations, reject them, or seek an alternative set of compromises.
If amendments are tabled, senators will debate and vote on whether to alter Bill C-12’s immigration sections, a step that would determine whether the proposed filing bar, cabinet document powers, and retroactive approach survive in their current form.
Royal assent remains the point at which any changes would take effect under the committee’s recommended approach, and the panel’s insistence on non-retroactivity ties implementation to that final step rather than earlier dates.
For refugee claimants, the stakes of the committee’s proposed rewrite are straightforward: a longer filing window could preserve access to the refugee system for some people who would be shut out under the bill’s original timeline.
For ministers and cabinet, the stakes are institutional as well as operational, because oversight and a sunset clause would impose limits on how broadly and how long executive powers can run in immigration matters framed as “public interest.”
The committee’s recommendations, however, do not amount to final law, and the direction of travel depends on what amendments the Senate ultimately adopts, how the bill moves through votes, and whether the final text reaches royal assent with the committee’s limits intact.
With a second-reading vote required by February 26, 2026, senators face a narrow window to decide whether to embrace the Social Affairs committee’s push to rein in Bill C-12’s immigration measures or leave the bill’s powers largely in place, despite warnings they could be “dangerous.”
Senate Committee Urges Removing Immigration Rules from Bill C-12
The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs has called for a major rewrite of Bill C-12’s immigration provisions. Warning of ‘dangerous’ powers and potential human rights breaches, the committee proposed extending refugee claim deadlines and removing retroactive clauses. The report emphasizes the need for procedural fairness and parliamentary oversight to prevent the cabinet from exercising vague ‘public interest’ authority over residency documents.
