(Photo by Saffron Blaze via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
In August 2023, Mohammad Al Hindi travelled from his home in Gaza to donate a kidney to his Canadian sister in Toronto. Three years later, this life-saving act may make him ineligible for refugee protection under the newly passed Bill C-12.
At the end of March, Bill C-12 became law, fundamentally changing Canada’s approach to asylum seekers. Shortly after taking office, Mark Carney’s government introduced the new legislation and framed it as a necessary response to growing backlogs in the immigration and asylum system, according to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
IRCC Minister, Lena Metlege Diab, said in a statement that Bill C-12 will “[strengthen] the practical tools that keep our immigration and asylum systems fair, efficient and working as intended.” She further justified the bill, stating that “these changes maintain access to protection and due process, while improving our ability to function effectively under sustained pressure.”
Bill C-12 has faced significant criticism from organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of refugees and migrants. The day following its passing, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) and 27 other organizations issued a statement condemning the bill:
Bill C-12 sets the current and future governments on a dangerous path by limiting the ability to seek refugee protection in Canada, enabling the mass cancellation of immigration documents and applications, and facilitating the sharing of personal information within and outside the country. Bill C-12 will put thousands of individuals at risk of persecution, violence and precarity.
From Bill C-2 to Bill C-12
The government revised Bill C-2, the “Strong Borders Act”, introduced in June 2025, into what later became Bill C-12. The government did not pass Bill C-2 in its original form, but carried many of its components through a series of revisions that ultimately became Bill C-12. Part of Bill C-2’s stated original introduction was to “strengthen the relationship” between Canada and the United States (U.S.). This was in the face of criticism from President Donald Trump over accusations of a flow of fentanyl and irregular migrants from Canada.
Bill C-12 has introduced two key restrictions for making a refugee claim in Canada:
- Individuals are ineligible to file a refugee claim more than one year after arriving in Canada, regardless of whether they have left the country and returned.
- Individuals are ineligible to make a refugee claim if they enter at a land border and file their claim more than 14 days after their entry.
A critical point for the one-year restriction is that IRCC is counting an individual’s first entry to Canada, going back as far as 2020. If someone visited Canada for unrelated reasons, such as to visit family, vacation, or study, and later became a refugee through a change of circumstances, they would be ineligible to file a refugee claim anytime after one year from their first entry date.
Speaking to CBC, the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyer, Adam Sadinsky, said that Bill C-12 is “the most significant rollback of refugee rights in more than a decade” and that he is certain the bill will face legal challenges on its constitutionality.
Impact on Refugees
In 2023, after recovering from surgery to donate a kidney to his Canadian sister, Mohammad Al Hindi travelled back to his home in Gaza. Intense bombing forced Al Hindi—who was not yet fully recovered from his surgery—and his family to flee their home in Gaza City.
In 2025, Al Hindi was able to return to Canada with his wife and children under a limited special measures program by IRCC that provided some Gazans with Canadian relatives with temporary visas. In August 2025, the Al Hindi family submitted a claim for refugee protection. One week after Bill C-12 passed, IRCC sent Al Hindi a letter warning that the new one-year filing requirement may render him ineligible for refugee protection and could lead to his removal from Canada.
Al Hindi’s case is not isolated. Legal advocacy organizations report that IRCC has started to send Procedural Fairness Letters to counsel and claimants, signifying that IRCC is moving fast to enact these new rules. While Procedural Fairness Letters are not deportation letters, they are used by IRCC to “give applicants an opportunity to provide additional information before a decision is made”. In mid-April, IRCC confirmed to CBC News in a statement that they have sent letters to around 30,000 applicants.
Lena Diab testified before a Canadian Senate committee that the bill applies to claims made on or after June 3, 2025, but retroactively assesses eligibility based on a person’s first entry into Canada as far back as June 24, 2020. The new bill could dismiss an estimated 19,000 refugee claims. The new rules may still allow claimants deemed ineligible to apply for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). A PRRA is a paper-based process that allows individuals a chance to show that if removed from Canada, they will face imminent danger or persecution.
(Photo by Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
Someone cannot apply for a PRRA if they made a claim for asylum that was ineligible due to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). The Canada-US STCA requires asylum seekers to make a refugee claim in the first country they arrive in. This agreement places significant restrictions on asylum seekers’ ability to submit a refugee claim in Canada after having travelled through the US.
The SCTA agreement assumes that the United States provides asylum seekers with meaningful access to protection in the United States, but the Trump administration’s restrictive asylum policies have called that assumption into question.
Access to Protection and Due Process
Refugee rights organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees maintain that the PRRA process is “wholly inadequate” and does not provide a fair substitute for a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Unlike IRB proceedings, PRRA does not guarantee access to an oral hearing and offers no right to appeal. These limitations raise serious concerns about whether Bill C-12 is able to uphold refugee claimants’ Charter-protected rights to a fair trial and meaningful due process.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s monumental 1985 Singh decision recognized the right to an oral hearing for refugee claimants by establishing that the protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to refugee claimants. Refugee Rights Day, celebrated every April 4th, commemorates the recognition of equal access and protection under the law for refugees in Canada.
These new restrictions have the potential to impact vulnerable refugee claimants. Bill C-12 undermines the critical principle of sur place, which recognizes that people may become refugees due to circumstances that occur after they leave their home country. The new one-year filing rule may impact those who are at risk because of actions they have taken since leaving their home country. Particulary with situations of political activism, coming out as LGBTQ+, or leaving an abusive relationship.
LGBTQ+ refugees face unique challenges that other refugees may not face. Similar to refugees fleeing other forms of gender-based violence, persecution often occurs in private settings, such as in the home or within family networks. Bill C-12’s strict timelines may prevent vulnerable refugees in these circumstances from safely distancing themselves from the family or community networks that place them at risk.
The requirement to file claims quickly ignores the retraumatizing nature of the asylum process. This often forces individuals to repeatedly recount experiences of violence and persecution while leaving little time to access mental health support or obtain adequate legal aid.
Ultimately, while the government frames Bill C-12 as a solution to growing IRCC case processing backlogs, it is limiting access to the asylum system itself. By restricting refugees’ access to hearings before the IRB and increasing reliance on PRRAs, the legislation reduces access to protection and erodes fundamental rights in the name of efficiency. With the greatest impact falling on those already in incredibly vulnerable circumstances.
A Shifting International Reputation
Canada has long been an international leader in refugee protection and often ranks among the top countries for refugee resettlement in UNHCR reports. In 2022, Canada received the largest number of resettlement arrivals, largely due to its special programs to support displaced Afghans. Canada has a strong legacy of community involvement in refugee resettlement through private sponsorship. Where community members take direct responsibility for supporting refugees’ settlement and integration. From 2010-2019, over half of resettled refugees arrived through private sponsorship.
However, Bill C-12 raises questions about whether Canada may be moving away from this legacy on the international stage. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said in a joint statement with other rights and legal advocacy organizations that with this bill, the Canadian government is “replicating US-like anti-migrant sentiment” and “will put thousands of individuals at risk of persecution, violence, and precarity.”
(Photo by Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed “serious concern” over Bill C-12, warning that the new laws may “weaken refugee protection” and “restricts access to fair refugee-status determination procedures.” Amnesty International Canada has also referred to Bill C-12 coming into law as a “devastating outcome,” with the justification for the bill scapegoating migrants and refugees.
In this way, the adoption of Bill C-12 brings Canada closer to the more restrictive, punitive policies of current U.S. immigration policy. All while signalling a step away from its previous commitments to refugee protection and a broader rights-based international order.
Broader Domestic Considerations
The evolution of Bill C-2 into C-12 reflects shifting political dynamics within Canada. Despite widespread concern from civil society about the bill’s expansive powers and its erosion of refugee rights, the most significant revisions from Bill C-2 to C-12 were not shaped by these critiques, but by pressure from the Conservative opposition.
Critics raised significant concerns about Bill C-2’s privacy provisions, which would have expanded authorities’ access to personal information about individuals’ online activity without a warrant. In June, Conservative MP Michelle Garner claimed the bill included “snooping provisions.” Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre confirmed that the party would not pass the original bill unless “they remove the violations of Canadians’ individual freedoms and privacy.” While the government revised these general surveillance-related concerns, it left key restrictions on asylum access largely intact.
Bill C-12 ultimately passed with the support of the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois, suggesting that political pressure from the right successfully narrowed certain provisions affecting Canadians broadly. Suggested revisions from refugee and legal rights organizations related to asylum access were absent from the final piece of legislation. The evolution of the bill appears to reflect political pressure from the right, particularly around border enforcement, rather than an effort to address legal and humanitarian concerns.
At the same time, attitudes towards immigrants and refugees have shifted in Canadian public opinion and political debate, with migrants often facing misplaced blame for increased cost of living and housing shortages.
Bill C-12 may reflect an attempt by the government to manage pressures on the immigration system and negative public attitudes by shifting responsibility away from the state and onto refugees. The passing of this bill raises important questions about rights protections for marginalized groups in Canada. If the government is willing to compromise on access to fair hearings and due process for refugee claimants, it sets a troubling precedent for how it will uphold these more broadly.
Edited by Emma Webb
