(Photo by Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
Listen to Article Summary:
In introducing Bill C-12, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (IRCC) Lena Metlege Diab and other federal officials have framed the restrictive legislation as a necessary step to maintain a “fair” and “efficient” immigration system, frequently invoking concerns about abuse and fraud.
Bill C-12 came into law in March 2026 as the “Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act”, and introduced some of the most significant changes to Canada’s asylum system in over a decade. Among its most consequential changes are new restrictions that make individuals ineligible to claim asylum if they apply more than one year after first entering Canada, a rule the government applied retroactively.
Immigration officials justified these restrictions – now being constitutionally challenged in Federal Court—as necessary to improve the efficiency and integrity of the asylum system, while placing refugee policy within a broader discourse of border security.
Politicians frequently cite concerns about fraudulent refugee claims and abuse of the asylum system to justify stricter immigration measures such as Bill C-12. In reality, Canada’s refugee determination process is highly rigorous, and narratives of widespread abuse often oversimplify why people seek asylum while overstating the scale of the problem.
In the March 2026 press release describing the passing of Bill C-12, Public Safety Canada framed asylum seekers as a potential challenge to border integrity and Canadians’ safety, instead of through the lens of individuals seeking protection. Public Safety Canada references “protect(ing) the asylum system against sudden increases in claims” and border security enforcement to protect from “transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl, and illicit financing.”
This framing contributes to longstanding narratives of asylum abuse by presenting increases in claims as a problem requiring stronger restrictions and enforcement, rather than as a reflection of global displacement trends and protection needs. By presenting reform as a response to alleged misuse, government messaging connects policy changes to the idea that the asylum system is widely vulnerable to abuse.
Recent History of ‘Fake’ Refugee Claim Narratives in Canada
The narrative of suspicion directed towards asylum seekers, particularly international students who later submit asylum claims, reflects what migration scholar and professor at York University Dr. Yvonne Su has described as a “moral panic”. Dr. Su attributes this to widespread misunderstandings of the reality of the refugee determination system, combined with “misinformation, disinformation, sensational media narratives, and political rhetoric.”
Moral panic is not a new phenomenon. It reflects a longstanding “discourse of distrust” framing refugee claimants as trying to “fool or take advantage of Canadian immigration and social welfare” systems. This discourse defined the Harper government’s approach to refugee policy, justifying increasingly restrictive reforms such as the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) policy. The DCO policy, built on the assumption that legitimate protection needs vary based on country of origin, had the stated aim of “discouraging misuse of the asylum system” and reducing processing times—language echoed in Bill C-12.
This same discourse of distrust defined the Harper government’s treatment of Roma asylum claimants during the same period. Then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney repeatedly branded Roma refugee claimants as “bogus” despite a 43% acceptance rate for Roma claims in 2008, and Federal Court decisions that later cited extensive evidence Hungary could not adequately protect them. The same logic underlies today’s rhetoric around international students, which treats claimants from certain countries as suspect, regardless of the individual merits of their case.
Refugees and migrants are easy targets to place blame on. As non-citizens, they are unable to vote and have relatively weak political power, making them convenient targets for public frustration and political blame. In Canadian public discourse, commentators have linked concerns around the job market, increases in the cost of living, and availability of public services to immigration levels.
The Human Cost of Abuse Narratives
When the government frames asylum seekers and refugee claimants as potential abusers of the system, public tolerance for restrictive and often harmful policy measures increases. By casting doubt on the legitimacy of refugee claimants as a group, it becomes easier to justify measures that reduce access to protection, healthcare, and due process.
The erosion of access has happened in layers. Under the Safe Third Country Agreement (SCTA), Canada and the U.S. treat each other as a “safe” country for asylum seekers, meaning that border officials generally turn back claimants crossing at an official land port of entry and require them to file their claims in the first country they reached. This drove many asylum seekers to make irregular crossings at unofficial points along the border. The Roxham Road site between Quebec and New York became a popular border crossing for asylum seekers entering Canada.
(Photo by Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
The 2023 expansion of the SCTA extended the agreement to the entire land border, removing options such as at Roxham Road. This redirected many claimants who had no safe legal alternative. For claimants without a qualifying exception, this eliminated the only legal pathway into Canada, leaving other irregular crossings as their only remaining option.
Bill C-12 then added a further restriction, deeming ineligible anyone who crossed irregularly from the U.S. and waited more than 14 days to file. This effectively closes what remained of irregular entry as a viable pathway to protection, and IRCC has already sent procedural fairness letters to 30,000 refugee claimants.
IFHP Cuts: Then & Now
Shortly before Bill C-12 came into law, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre announced his party would put a motion before the House of Commons directed at what he called “fake refugees” receiving “deluxe benefits” through the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). The IFHP is a federal program that provides temporary, limited health coverage to refugee claimants, sponsored refugees, and protected persons not yet eligible for provincial insurance.
This echoes the Harper government’s 2012 IFHP cuts, which targeted claimants affected by the DCO policy and were justified through arguments that the IFHP undeservedly provided “illegal immigrants” and “bogus refugee claimants” with “gold-plated health care.”
A federal court later ruled the cuts unconstitutional, finding they caused “cruel and unusual treatment.”
Who Counts as ‘Genuine’?
Similar to 2012, these changes have the potential to significantly impact the lives and health of vulnerable migrants. This rhetoric is also based on the same fundamental argument political commentators make: that it is straightforward to distinguish “genuine” refugees from those who are abusing the system.
In practice, this distinction is often less clear, and does not align well with the restrictions new policies such as C-12 are placing. Immigration lawyers note that trauma, fear, lack of family/community support, or change of circumstances often cause 2SLGBTQ+ claimants or survivors of gender-based violence to take longer to apply for asylum. Under Bill C-12’s one-year rule, the timing of a claim can render it ineligible before the IRB ever assesses it on its merits.
Meanwhile, fraud in the refugee determination system is relatively rare, and it is important to distinguish it from rejection—a claim being turned down does not mean that it is fraudulent. The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Canada’s expert tribunal responsible for adjudicating refugee claims, recognizes that the manner of entry into Canada is not relevant to the merits of a refugee claim. When the IRB encounters a claim that is “clearly fraudulent”, it has a legal obligation to declare it “manifestly unfounded”, a designation that the IRB issues in just a few dozen cases annually. In 2025, over 100,000 claims were referred to the IRB for assessment.
The International Student Myth
There is a recent trend in political rhetoric against international students claiming asylum. In response, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) has argued that many of the countries associated with the highest number of student asylum claims —including India, Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—often produce refugees and have documented human rights concerns.
Rhetoric focused on the increase in asylum claims by international students, while failing to acknowledge the high acceptance rates of claims from many of the identified countries, creates the false impression that these claims are largely fraudulent or abusive.
The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) evaluates refugee claims based on their content, not how someone entered Canada, a fundamental principle of refugee law. Countries may not penalize asylum seekers and refugees for irregular entry to a country, or those who file a claim at a delayed date. However, political narratives about international students claiming asylum often focus on their entry route, which can wrongly suggest that their claims are less genuine.
Over the past five years, the IRB’s Refugee Protection Division has maintained an average acceptance rate of 63%, with rates varying by country of origin. This reflects a system responding to global trends and fluctuating protection needs.
Dr. Su argues that “while it’s true that asylum claims from international students are on the rise, the implication that students are abusing Canada’s asylum system does a disservice to both the students and the integrity of our immigration processes.” From 2018 to 24, only 1.94% of international students applied for asylum, while the remaining 98% did not. The data-backed reality of asylum claims by international students in Canada does not paint the picture former Minister of the IRCC, Marc Miller, described as contributing to an “overheated” system requiring “discipline”.
Understanding Canada’s Asylum System
Many Canadians are not familiar with how the asylum system works nor the lengthy and complex process required to access refugee protection. When politicians such as Minister Diab prioritize efficiency and the reduction of IRCC’s case backlog over respecting migrant rights, they place the onus on migrants themselves. Officials conflate increases in asylum claims and the resulting backlogs as a sign the system is being used fraudulently. However, backlogs are often the result of insufficient administrative capacity rather than fraud.
Narratives of fraud and abuse do not reflect an honest assessment of the asylum system’s weaknesses. Instead, they function as political groundwork, generating public support for measures that limit access to protection, weaken due process, and shift the cost of a structurally underfunded system onto the vulnerable people it was designed to serve.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration and Canada Border Services Agency recently announced a second wave of regulations building on Bill C-12, which remained open for public comment until July 20, 2026. The proposed rules would impose a 60-day deadline for claimants to submit complete applications, require security and admissibility screening before a claim ever reaches the IRB, and shift hearing-scheduling authority from federal officers to the tribunal itself.
Officials point to a pending caseload of almost 300,000 claims and stretching wait times as justification—even as new claims fell 63% between January and April 2026 compared to the same period in 2024. The consultation period offers Canadian civil society and legal advocacy organizations the opportunity to weigh in, but whether it will shape these reforms in any meaningful way remains to be seen.
Edited by Emma Webb
