Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill
Motion in Amendment Negatived
March 12, 2026
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-12, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended, in clause 73, on page 34,
(a)by replacing line 5 with the following:
“and made the claim more than two years after the day”;
(b)by replacing line 17 with the following:
“24, 2020, the two-year period referred to in that para-”.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, I have spoken a lot about Bill C-12 — you’re probably tired of hearing me speak to it — but I wanted to rise today to speak briefly to Senator Coyle’s amendment because I love its elegant simplicity. I presented to you an amendment yesterday that was perhaps a little too baroque, but nothing could be simpler than this: a common-sense measure to deal with the fact that one year simply may not be long enough for many vulnerable people to pull together the wherewithal to file a refugee claim, as two years provides a little bit more elbow room in a country that likes to keep its elbows up.
I am cognizant of the fact that there will always be people who game the system. For any government system that we set up, there will always be a small minority of people who try to cheat the system, try to deke around the rules or try to play on our hospitality and generosity. But it is very dangerous to create a regime predicated on dealing with the worst of the worst, instead of recognizing the fact that most refugee claimants are making their claims in good faith.
Are there people who just ran out the clock on their work visas or student visas and are applying for refugee status as a last-ditch, Hail Mary pass? I’m sure there are, and I’m sure the numbers bear that out. However, I think the majority of refugee claimants — and that is for whom we are building a system — are people who require our support and our understanding that, sometimes, 12 months in a new country where you don’t speak the language or have the wherewithal may not be enough to jump through every bureaucratic hoop.
It is a funny thing. In my experience as a journalist and a politician, people are often very worried about immigrants and refugees as faceless numbers. When you start telling people’s individual, personal stories, though, it is my experience that the heart of the average Canadian, like that of the Grinch, grows several sizes.
As Senator Coyle was speaking today, I thought about a story I worked on at the Edmonton Journal in the last year I was with the paper. The year was 2018. At that time, you may recall, the first Trump government had cracked down on people who had been legally in the United States but had suddenly lost their status. There were stories that inflamed Canadian passions about thousands of people travelling from the United States and illegally crossing our borders.
Now, I live in Edmonton, which is pretty far from the border. It is not Roxham Road or White Rock, British Columbia. We didn’t have thousands of people flooding over the border in Coutts, Alberta or Whitefish, Montana. That is not a big border crossing. Nonetheless, we absolutely had people coming to Edmonton who had landed in a different part of the country and were making a refugee claim.
I called the Edmonton Newcomer Centre and said, “I would like to put a face to this story.” They introduced me to a remarkable family: Shuaieb Abara and his wife Malak Tantush. They were highly educated professionals who had come to the United States from Libya on student visas and had built a life there. Shuaieb had started a very successful travel agency and Malak was a scientific researcher. They had two little boys, Bashir and Adam, who were born in Trump’s America and were American citizens by birthright. Then, Donald Trump said, “Libyans cannot be here anymore.”
At that time, things in Libya were in chaos, and for Mr. Abara, it would have been tantamount to a death sentence to travel back to Libya. So the family fled across the border. They crossed at White Rock, British Columbia, and immediately made an asylum claim. Why did they immediately make an asylum claim? Because they were highly educated professionals who spoke fluent English, and they understood what they had to do. They had family in Canada who had advised them on what to do. They made a refugee claim, their refugee claim was heard promptly and they were granted asylum.
I remember that I went to interview them, and I brought a photographer from the paper with me. They were — journalists love this — the most photogenic family you can imagine. He was handsome, she was beautiful and the two little boys were so cute with their curly hair and matching Mickey Mouse sweatshirts. My heart melted.
We put that picture on the front page of the Edmonton Journal, and all of those people who were grumpy about illegal people sneaking over the border — those bad, scary, illegal people — saw them. Look. There they were: This picture-perfect, beautiful family, an example of exactly the kind of people we want to welcome to this country. Not people who were going to be a drag on the economy. People who were going to be entrepreneurial, people who were going to be scientifically rigorous and who were going to add to the culture and the vibrancy of my city of Edmonton.
So when I hear all the debate that has transpired about Bill C-12, I think about the fact that, so often, we hear about this backlog of numbers. Numbers, numbers, numbers. Behind every one of those numbers is a story.
I think that we need to open ourselves to the possibility that maybe asking people to get their act together in 12 months is an unreasonable limitation. Twenty-four months doesn’t solve the underlying systemic problems of the bill. It is the most modest of compromises. Yet, it does create that little extra bit of breathing room.
It will also send a message back to our dear friends in the other place. It will say to them that we did the study that this bill required. We thought long, hard and carefully about small improvements that would make this better, that would make it still palatable to people who are hardline on these issues, that would still make it possible for things to move more quickly and, at the same time, that would not betray the reputation for hospitality and generosity that has long underpinned our refugee system.
Yesterday, Senator Housakos was speaking passionately about the reputation of our immigration system and wondering why we were being so cynical and so skeptical about a system that has functioned so well and brought so much honour to this country.
Senator Harder reminded us, not forcibly, but eloquently, about the role he had personally played in building an immigration and refugee system that was functional, that worked and that honoured the history of his own Mennonite ancestors, who had come here as immigrants and refugees.
I don’t want for one minute to besmirch the reputation of the people who work in our immigration and refugee system, some of whom are doing remarkable work to help build this country in the healthiest way possible, but as you think about Senator Coyle’s amendment, her modest, simple, elegant, forthright amendment, and how much more breathing room it will give to people in need, and what a gentle, yet firm, message it will send to the House of Commons, to the other place, I invite you to consider what it will mean to all of the people who have been watching this debate if we do nothing, and if we don’t say that there are problems with this bill and that we want you to think again about how to make them better.
I have not been in touch with Mr. Abara and Ms. Tantush and their little boys since I took up this job in 2018, but their story has stayed with me during all that time as an example, not just of one family and a story that moved me, but of the capacity we all have to think past statistics, to think past graphs and charts, and to remember that, for every single refugee claimant, there is a story that, if we were privileged to know, might change hearts and minds. Thank you, hiy hiy.
Will Senator Simons take a question?
I would be delighted to take a question.
Thank you, Senator Simons.
My question is about Senator Coyle’s amendment, so I will get you to think about the amendment and possibly what you know about it, because the amendment does not touch Bill C-12’s new ineligibility to claim asylum if the claim is made more than 14 days after an irregular crossing at the Canada-U.S. border. This amendment only looks at claims made while someone is in Canada after one year.
I know it is not your amendment, but perhaps you might shed some light on it to help us understand why the amendment only speaks to the one-year ineligibility and not the 14-day ineligibility period.
I will do my best to channel Senator Coyle, who can send thought waves this way.
As you know, because of the time you spent in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology hearings, these are two separate parts of the legislation. As you correctly say, this would deal with a situation where, for example, someone has been in the country for a year on a work permit, a student visa or some other kind of visitor visa, and now they make a refugee claim.
That is the simpler thing to fix. The 14-day irregular problem is complicated because it’s kind of a Catch-22, as I understood it from all of the experts with whom we spoke. It is not really easy to claim before 14 days, and now you cannot claim after 14 days. I think of the couple that I talked about. They’re actually a better example of what you are talking about.
The problem is that there are a great number of weaknesses in this legislation that have been highlighted to us by civil society groups. When we made amendments — I think there will end up being seven or eight amendments in total — we each zeroed in on one issue. I think Senator Coyle chose to focus on this one in part because she had been dealing with the issue of rainbow refugees and hearing a lot from LGBTQ community leaders.
This does not fix every problem in the bill. I wish that we had world enough and time to mend it. When I speak to schoolchildren, I always say that we mend bills. I say, “Does your mom ever mend a hole in your pants or at your elbows or your socks? That’s what we do. We mend the holes in legislation to the best of our ability.” In this case, in a bill with many holes, there are only so many mends we can make.
Honourable senators, I too would like to take some time to add my voice to those who have already spoken in support of the compromise amendment put forward by Senator Coyle.
As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, I participated in the study on Part 5 and Part 7 of this bill. Nearly all of the witnesses we heard from expressed serious concerns about the one-year ineligibility rule.
The Canadian Bar Association, for instance, denounced this measure for its overbreadth and arbitrariness and for the absence of a mechanism to differentiate between non-meritorious and entirely genuine claims. This one-year ban on applying for asylum is also much stricter than the one in effect in the United States, since it applies from the date of first entry into the country, whereas the U.S. system provides for numerous exemptions that fall into two categories: changed circumstances and extraordinary circumstances.
This second category includes things like serious illness, psychological trauma, disability and even cases of serious counsel incompetence.
I deliberately used the word “compromise” to describe Senator Coyle’s amendment. I would also describe it as an amendment rooted in compassion for vulnerable individuals. I want to take a few moments to explain why I think those words are important.
The 1951 Refugee Convention neither requires nor encourages strict deadlines for making an asylum claim, and Senator Coyle is not asking that this new ineligibility measure be removed entirely — far from it.
One of the solutions suggested by several witnesses was that the proposed one-year ineligibility rule in Bill C-12 could be made more equitable if it were tied to the claimant’s most recent date of entry rather than their first. This is, in fact, the recommendation we made in our report to the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. Senator Coyle’s amendment does not seek to change the entry date set out in this bill.
The recommendation that my Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee colleagues and I supported would have changed the ineligibility period from one year to five years. Senator Coyle is responding by proposing a reasonable period of two years.
The approach our colleague is asking us to adopt is, therefore, very reasonable. The compromise she proposes offers an additional opportunity to potential claimants, particularly the most vulnerable, including people who have experienced trauma.
The one-year limit simply does not take into account the fact that personal and political situations can change. A person’s rights, their safety and even their life may come under threat long after they enter Canada. We also heard that this deadline is even more likely to be detrimental to LGBTQIA+ people and survivors of gender-based violence, who might take years to disclose their situation or gather the information they need to claim asylum. Organizations reminded us that asylum claims are often delayed because of trauma, lack of legal knowledge, barriers to accessing a lawyer or circumstances that change over time. We were also told that a rigid one-year deadline could exclude genuine refugees in need.
By extending the deadline by an extra year — still an arbitrary deadline, of course — we can at least avoid excluding some particularly vulnerable individuals who may not be equipped to act rapidly as soon as they enter Canada.
Honourable colleagues, on the one hand, the government has not provided me with a clear explanation or with quantitative evidence and data showing that this measure would actually resolve the challenges it is addressing, namely, possible fraud and processing backlogs. On the other hand, the witnesses demonstrated rigorously and convincingly the potential unintended consequences of this provision.
Honourable senators, my colleagues and I sat through 13 hours of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee hearings, listened to 35 witnesses and, like most in this chamber, read everything that was sent our way.
What is clear to me is that the measures in Part 8 of this bill can be improved. They can better protect those who are most at risk while still achieving the bill’s objectives, and this amendment does exactly that. It does not impede the objective of the bill. It does not dismantle the measure. It simply makes it more human and balanced.
Colleagues, this is a reasonable amendment. It is one of compromise and compassion, and I ask you to consider it through that lens and support it.
Thank you.
First of all, thank you, Senator Coyle, Senator Simons and Senator Petitclerc for your interventions.
I am going to ask, as we consider these proposed amendments, a primary question, and that is whether we in Canada have the tools to keep Canada’s immigration and asylum system working effectively under sustained pressure while still maintaining the safeguards and due process that Canadians expect, all in the context in which we have a backlog of around 300,000 claims.
Canada’s asylum system relies on credibility and timeliness. When claims are accumulating faster than they can be processed, delays grow and uncertainty intensifies for claimants, communities and the institutions responsible for delivering protection.
I now turn to Senator Coyle’s amendment, which deals with the proposed ineligibilities in the asylum system.
Bill C-12 introduces new ineligibility rules under which claims would be ineligible for referral if they are made more than one year after an individual’s first entry into Canada after June 24, 2020.
As you know, asylum claims are normally driven by urgency. They are driven by fear of repression or danger, so usually, and historically, are made soon after landing in Canada. There are exceptions to that, but the large majority get in there quickly and make their claim and want it to move as fast as it possibly can.
This has been consistent for decades, and our asylum processes have developed around it.
We started with the remnants of the pandemic backlog, which was worked down, and that’s now been amplified again by what is now an unprecedented volume of claims: around 300,000. The massive backlog is in large part the result of a relatively recent but significant shift: A growing number of those applying for asylum have already been in Canada for two or three years, many on temporary work or study permits, and are now looking to the asylum process as a means of remaining in Canada.
It’s important to acknowledge, as was mentioned earlier, that some of these claimants may have left stable and peaceful countries that might no longer be stable. We need to worry about those claimants. This is a cohort that would, in any event, be protected by Canada’s non-refoulement policies.
We also heard mention of criminal enterprises, and I won’t repeat what we already heard here. To protect the system from sudden surges in claims while respecting our international obligations, the measures in this provision aim to protect and preserve the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system by encouraging and incentivizing early asylum claims and discouraging misuse while maintaining access for those who are genuinely in need.
Those affected by this change would have access to the pre‑removal risk assessment that’s currently in place. While I understand the concerns addressed by Senator Coyle and others, they actually run contrary to the intention of the bill, which is based on the urgency usually associated with these claims and which also signals an incentive for potential applicants to file their claims within a year of entry. That is the important policy signal here. That’s an intentional message that is being sent to those who are considering making claims.
On that basis, colleagues, I believe that this motion should not be supported, but I leave that in your capable hands. As a final note, we’ve talked about these claimants being referred to the pre-removal risk assessment process. That’s been in place for 20 years. It is conducted by officers who have lengthy, long-term experience in the IRB and who received specialized training in working with vulnerable groups and meeting Canada’s international obligations. Thank you.
Would the honourable senator take a question?
Yes.
I have to ask this question, Senator Dean, because I sat through 13 hours of testimony as well. At the end of those 13 hours, we asked, especially the officials, to provide information in the form of data to support their claim that there was a sudden, marked increase in applications by refugees. We never received that data.
We asked them to provide us with data on the one-, two-, three- or four-year periods before people claim refugee status. You talk about how it is normal for things to occur within a very short period after people arrive in Canada. Do you have substantive data on how you know that the one-year mark, the six-month mark and the three-month mark are the times within which people normally apply? If so, can you share that data with us now? We asked for that data. It was never supplied.
We are in a position where a lot of statements — some of which sound a lot like the ones you are giving us today — are not backed up by any data that we have seen. We have requested data. I hope you can help us, because this seems to be our last opportunity to consider it. Are these claims substantiated by data?
I won’t go shuffling through my binder to find the numbers you are looking for because I don’t have them in front of me.
However, we know that those who arrive in Canada with the intention of seeking asylum are primarily here to do that. I was told, as you were, that the great majority do so within the first year. It makes intuitive sense to me that someone fleeing repression and danger would have an instinct to do that as quickly as possible. They are unlikely to wait two to three years. Some might, but I don’t have the data in front of me.
Senator Dean, my follow-up question would be this: Is it intuitive to you that a person who has potentially suffered persecution in their country for being gay might come to Canada and seek other ways to become landed so that they don’t have to declare that? That might, in and of itself, produce something of a delay in the time period in which they accept this is not going to happen, looking at the backlog of over 300,000 cases on the refugee asylum side and a much larger number on the immigration side.
People may finally realize that they will have to face admitting they are gay and coming out of the closet — something they hadn’t been willing to do before and their parents, cousins, sisters, colleagues and so on may not know about. When they finally get there, is it intuitive to you that these cases might occur?
Having sat through all of your hearings, I heard that point made a number of times. In fact, I heard the same points repeated a number of times. I also heard discussion within that context of an exemption for people who may find themselves in exactly the circumstances that you described. You will recall that these discussions came up at the committee. In that context, the question was raised about whether there could be tailored exemptions made under these provisions, and you know there is an exemption provision for this.
I heard that, indeed, exemptions are being considered for particular complex cases of the sort you described. So, yes, there will be such cases. That is not just intuition. We know it. I know it as well as you do. I know it as well as the witnesses before you did. I think that those exemptions will be responsive to precisely the sort of situation that you are describing. It wouldn’t be possible to describe them all in the legislation, but you were in the same room as me. I think you heard the minister refer to this. She was pressed on it and was quite definitive about it.
That’s the answer to your question.
Are senators ready for the question?
In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Coyle, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, that Bill C-12, as amended, be not now read a third time but that it be further amended in clause 73 — may I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the length of the bell?
Fifteen minutes.
Is leave granted, senators?
Leave is granted, so the vote will take place at 4:55. Call in the senators.
