Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Friday, February 20, 2026

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to table its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of Parts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, February 5, 2026, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Pursuant to its order of reference, your committee examined parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12 over the course of thirteen hours of meetings. Your committee heard testimony from 35 witnesses, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister), officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the President of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), legal experts such as the Canadian Bar Association and representatives of civil society. Your committee also received 36 written submissions which were shared with all members. Your committee appends to this report a list of witnesses that were heard and briefs that were received (Appendices A and B).

While your committee heard from officials that parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12 are intended to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs, serve as a deterrent to those seeking to circumvent Canada’s immigration system and ensure that only those eligible to stay in Canada remain in Canada, a significant number of witnesses raised concerns regarding infringement on human rights, privacy protections, procedural fairness, unconstitutionality, overreach of executive powers and disproportionate impacts on children, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, women and frontline service providers. Your committee heard substantial testimony calling for the full removal of parts 5 to 8 from the proposed legislation, with specific emphasis on removing parts 5 and 7 of the bill.

The Government of Canada officials committed to send data to support the stated intent of parts 5 to 8 of the bill, which have been collected since at least 2020. It is concerning that, as of the writing of this report, officials have not provided all of the requested data to support their claims. Your committee also questions the necessity of the proposed measures when, according to a senior legal officer from the United Nations Refugee Agency in Canada, Canada receives less than 2% of asylum claims globally.

Below your committee presents a summary of the evidence from its study of parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12, followed by recommendations for amendments which include the full removal of parts 5 to 8 of the bill.

Part 5 – Information Sharing

Part 5 of Bill C-12 would add an information sharing regime to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Your committee heard from a majority of witnesses that Part 5, regarding the proposed information-sharing and disclosure provisions, should be removed. Testimony highlighted critical risks associated with the exchange of data between federal departments, provinces, territories, and foreign entities. These concerns included the possible denial of social benefits and services to certain individuals as well as breaches of privacy related to personal identities. Individuals from the 2SLGBTQI+ community, gender diverse organizations, women and frontline service providers expressed significant concerns about confidentiality, victimization, safety and increased vulnerability if personal information is disclosed. Your committee also learned from the Minister and departmental officials that, while the aim of Part 5 is the “purposeful sharing” of information to facilitate the provision of services, this regime may also apply to permanent residents and naturalized citizens. Your committee did not receive a justification for the inclusion of permanent residents and naturalized citizens within the proposed information sharing regime.

See recommendations 2 and 3 below.

Part 6 – In-Canada Asylum System

Part 6 of Bill C-12 would amend several provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) governing the in-Canada asylum system. Part 6 of Bill C-12 largely replicates the first-reading version of Division 38 of Part 4 of former Bill C-69 from the 44^th Parliament. During the pre-study of Division 38 in June 2024, your committee recommended then that the Government of Canada consider “the complete retraction of this division for future study on its own merits.”

Your committee learned that, under section 167(2) of IRPA, the IRB, a trusted organization, designates representatives for minors, though these do not have decision-making powers. Some expert witnesses expressed concerns about the proposed ministerial appointment of designated representatives with substitute decision-making powers to be specified in regulations. Your committee also heard from multiple witnesses that the proposed provision on automatic abandonment hearings for missed deadlines removes flexibility and discretion in the asylum process, especially for vulnerable claimants, such as unaccompanied minors and 2SLGBTQI+ individuals. It may also unintentionally create a new backlog in abandonment hearings.

See recommendations 4 and 5 below.

Part 7 – New Authorities for Applications and Documents

Part 7 of Bill C-12 would amend IRPA to, among other things, allow the Governor in Council to make certain orders regarding immigration documents in the “public interest.” Part 7 indicates that an order is consistent with the “public interest” if it seeks to address matters “such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.”

Your committee heard from multiple witnesses that Part 7 should be removed. In particular, witnesses argued that giving the Governor in Council the power to make an order to cancel, suspend, vary or impose new conditions on immigration documents in the “public interest,” including permanent resident visas and permanent resident cards, as unjustified leading to the potential overreach of executive powers.

Your committee also heard about a potential heightened risk of discriminatory mass cancellations emanating from the proposed Order-in-Council powers, with witnesses recalling orders used against labour organizers, Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany, and Japanese immigrants and Japanese Canadians, during the first half of the twentieth century.

Finally, your committee heard testimony that raised concerns about the highly discretionary definition for “public interest” proposed in the bill. This definition lists extremely broad categories capturing a myriad of situations, which could increase the risk of discriminatory group-based decisions by future governments and weaken rule-of-law safeguards.

See recommendation 6 below.

Part 8 – Ineligibility Measures

Part 8 of Bill C-12 would amend IRPA to introduce two new ineligibility measures for refugee protection claims, which would prevent certain claimants from being referred to the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB. These ineligibility provisions would apply to claims for refugee protection made on or after 3 June 2025. The Governor in Council would be authorized to introduce regulations setting out exceptions relating to the two new ineligibility measures.

The first of the new ineligibility measures would make claims for refugee protection ineligible if, after 24 June 2020, more than one year has passed since the person first entered Canada. In cases of multiple entries, Part 8 stipulates that if a claimant has entered Canada more than once after 24 June 2020, the one-year period would begin on the day after the day of their first entry. The second measure relates to claims for refugee protection made by a person who crossed the Canada-United States land border between ports of entry after a 14-day period.

Your committee heard that people deemed ineligible for refugee protection in Canada would be considered for a removal process, which would include a paper-based pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) conducted by IRCC officials. Witnesses stated their deep concern that a paper-based PRRA process would undermine the due process now available through the IRB and would not be an adequate alternative process. While your committee heard from departmental officials that oral hearings are required when there is a credibility issue at stake in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, multiple witnesses expressed significant concern over both the loss of an oral hearing and the right of appeal. Furthermore, your committee heard that seeking judicial review of a PRRA decision along with a stay of removal from the Federal Court would likely increase the backlogs of this institution.

Witnesses cautioned that the proposed change to a paper-based PRRA system for these claimants could significantly limit their ability to present their case, with the requirement for a credibility-based oral hearing being subject to a decision by IRCC officials. This could in turn result in fewer safeguards against “getting it wrong”, in an increased risk of deportation, and in a disproportionate impact on people from vulnerable groups. Among other things, witnesses recommended that Part 8 be amended to allow those deemed ineligible under the proposed provisions to access a mandatory oral hearing and to retain the right to a full appeal at the Refugee Appeal Division of the IRB. Your committee echoes these concerns and notes the uncertainty over how the proposed regime might be implemented.

Your committee acknowledges the expertise of the IRB, an independent administrative tribunal praised by multiple witnesses as a “world-renowned expert” in adjudicating refugee protection matters. Your committee also recognizes the success of the IRB in introducing measures that have increased its efficiency and allowed it to consider an increased number of cases over the past few years.

Your committee also learned that the proposed one-year ineligibility rule, which in cases of multiple entries would start on the day after the day of the claimant’s first entry, should be removed from the bill given its high likelihood of negatively impacting the most vulnerable – including 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, minors, people fleeing gender-based violence, and persons from moratorium countries that benefit from a suspension on removals.

Indeed, while the purpose of the one-year ineligibility rule is to address potential misuse of the system, the proposed measure would not reflect extenuating circumstances including the situation of a child who is brought to Canada as a baby for one day and later returns at age 10. Your committee also heard that basing the one-year ineligibility rule on the last date of entry would increase fairness. Your committee also heard that making a claim in a timely manner is irrelevant to whether or not a person needs protection.

Witnesses also indicated that this bill would extend ineligibility for those entering between ports of entry under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which would result in deportation without an oral hearing. Presently, after 14 days, individuals coming in under the STCA get a hearing. Under the proposed legislation, they would not. Your committee agrees with the concern of witnesses that questioned the assumption that the United States asylum system consistently provides safe and fair access to protection.

Your committee also learned that the proposed regulation-making powers to introduce exceptions to the ineligibility rules would not be subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Your committee understands that the federal government has publicly communicated its intention to introduce a regulatory exception regarding minors.

Finally, witnesses expressed profound concern regarding the retroactive provisions of Bill C-12, particularly the proposed one-year ineligibility rule regarding refugee protection claims which would apply to individuals who arrived in Canada as far back as June 2020. Testimony indicated that such measures would stand to negatively impact thousands of good-faith applicants who have been diligently following the established immigration process.

See recommendations 7 to 10 below.

Robust Parliamentary Scrutiny (parts 5 to 8)

Witnesses emphasized the necessity of robust parliamentary scrutiny and independent oversight to monitor the implementation of Bill C-12. A recurring proposal throughout the testimony was the inclusion of a sunset clause specifically for parts 5 through 8 of the proposed legislation.

Furthermore, witnesses argued that any such review must critically examine the public interest rationale cited for these measures, acknowledging that these justifications may result in significant impacts on rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). It is essential that this evaluation be conducted through a dedicated lens of human rights and international obligations to ensure the legislation remains consistent with Canada’s legal framework and moral commitments. This oversight mechanism is particularly critical given the potential Charter implications resulting from significant changes to the asylum determination process. A formal review would ensure that any unintended impacts on fundamental rights are identified and rectified.

See recommendation 11 below.

Recommendations for Amendments

Based on the testimony received and summarized above, below your committee provides its recommendations regarding parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12:

1. Your committee recommends that Bill C-12 be amended to remove parts 5 to 8.

If recommendation 1 is not adopted, your committee makes the following recommendations for amendments to parts 5 to 8 of Bill C-12 below:

2. Your committee recommends that Part 5 of the bill be amended to include a mandatory review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

3. Your committee recommends that Part 5 of the bill be amended to ensure that the proposed information-sharing regime does not apply to permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

4. Your committee recommends an amendment to remove proposed new section 6.1(3)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Part 6 of the bill.

5. Your committee recommends an amendment to change Part 6 of the bill from “must transmit” to “may transmit” in proposed new section 102.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

6. Your committee recommends that Part 7 of the bill be amended to include robust parliamentary oversight to monitor the implementation of the proposed measures, in accordance with section 39(1) of the Interpretation Act and as indicated in recommendation 11.

7. Your committee recommends that the Government of Canada direct greater resources to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada so that it can continue efficiently adjudicating refugee protection claims, including providing oral hearings and a right of appeal for claimants.

8. Your committee recommends that proposed new sections 101(1)(b.1) and 101(1.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Part 8 of the bill be amended to increase the ineligibility period from one to five years, from the most recent date of entry.

9. Your committee recommends that Part 8 of the bill be amended to include exceptions to the ineligibility rules set out under proposed new sections 101(1)(b.1) and 101(1)(b.2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and to remove the proposed regulation-making powers in this regard under proposed new sections 111.1(1)(b.1) and 111.1(1)(b.2) of that same Act.

10. Your committee recommends an amendment to remove the retroactive clauses in Part 8 of the bill to ensure the proposed legislation aligns with the standard legal principle of prospective application, whereby changes take effect only upon Royal Assent.

11. Your committee recommends that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act (Part 5) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (parts 6 to 8) be amended to include a sunset clause that would mandate an obligatory parliamentary review to assess the efficiency, fairness, and overall balance of the proposed policy shifts.

Respectfully submitted,