Immigration measures stay in border bill with no amendment

OTTAWA — Senators on the national security committee have approved the immigration measures outlined in the government’s border bill, C-12, with no amendment, despite the Senate social affairs committee recommending those areas be withdrawn entirely.

This came after witnesses told the social affairs committee that the bill stood the risk of infringing on people’s human rights, lacking procedural fairness and disproportionately would affect vulnerable people like children, those fleeing domestic violence and the LGBTQ+ community.

The national security committee was responsible for making amendments to the bill, while the social affairs committee has conducted an in-depth study of the bill’s immigration measures.

The national security committee began Monday with independent Senator Tony Dean reading a lengthy letter on behalf of Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Immigration Minister Lena Diab on the rationale for the bill, responding to issues raised in the social affairs committee study.

The letter stressed that there is bipartisan support for this bill as only “a handful” of MPs voted against it and B.C. Premier David Eby said it should be passed “without delay” after alleged extortionists made asylum claims in that province.

Bill C-12 has sections focused on immigration that deal with information-sharing and managing the asylum system. It also proposes giving the government new powers to modify or cancel existing immigration documents and applications.

An area of the legislation that has drawn significant criticism would bar people who first came to Canada more than a year prior from filing refugee claims with the Immigration and Refugee Board. That section would be retroactive to June 24, 2020 for a first entry date, and apply to asylum claims made on or after June 3, 2025.

Diab told the committee earlier this month that 37 per cent of asylum claims filed between June 3 and Oct. 31, 2025 would be disallowed under this ineligibility measure — about 19,000 of 50,000 applications.

The letter from Diab and Anandasangaree says while asylum claims have dropped by one third in 2025 compared to 2024, more still needs to be done to disincentivize misuse of the asylum system and new measures are needed with plans to reduce temporary visa volumes.

Witnesses warned the Senate social affairs committee that the current wording might prevent someone who came to Canada as a baby on a family vacation from making a conventional asylum claim, should they later be threatened by conflict, come out as LGBTQ+ and be from a country where that is persecuted or are escaping domestic violence.

The government defended this timeline during committee hearings, saying people could still apply for a pre-removal risk assessment if they sought asylum under these conditions.

Witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International, argued the legislation would set up a two-tier asylum system that wouldn’t guarantee in-person hearings for vulnerable people, such as members of the LGBTQ+ community and survivors of domestic violence.

Ontario Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak introduced an amendment to change the ineligibility period for refugee claims from the need to make a claim within one year of first arrival to within three years of the most recent arrival.

The social affairs committee report called for a five year window.

Al Zaibak said this new timeline would be “more logical and fair” to people who weren’t considered when drafting the bill.

Jason Hollman, director general for asylum policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told the committee Monday night that a majority of refugee claims are made within someone’s first year.

He added that the “most recent entry” wording could be exploited by people leaving Canada and simply coming back.

Ontario Senator Tony Dean backed the one year timeline, saying that people have sent a clear message that the asylum and immigration system needs reform and claimants are expected to follow the rules. He added that there are still safety measures and due process included through the pre-removal risk assessment.

Al Zaibak’s amendment was rejected by the national security committee.

Quebec Senator Suze Youance introduced an amendment to create an exception for minors who first came to Canada with their parents, so they would not be caught by the one-year rule for being ineligible to make a refugee claim.

Dean raised prior comments from Diab, who said she is considering a similar exemption by way of regulation.

Youance’s amendment was defeated.

Bill C-12 also proposes giving the government powers to cancel or modify a host of immigration documents — including permanent residency cards — that have been issued already or are in the government’s application inventory if cabinet decides it’s in the public interest.

Al Zaibak introduced an amendment to change the definition of “public interest” that would be used to justify the mass modification of immigration documents.

He proposed limiting the definition put forward by the House of Commons, which included fraud, administrative error, national security, public safety and public health to just deal with “administrative errors.”

Senators opted to keep the House of Commons definition.

Senators also rejected an amendment tabled by Al Zaibak aimed at pushing for increased parliamentary oversight on the use of these “public interest” powers, which are determined by cabinet.

There are provisions in the bill that say any use of these powers needs to be clearly communicated in the Canada Gazette and give specific parameters for why the powers are being used, who they affect and what the timeline is.

The bill has a second reading vote deadline of Feb. 26.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 23, 2026.

David Baxter, The Canadian Press