The recent introduction of Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 marks a significant evolution in Canada’s immigration and border-security landscape. While both legislative initiatives aim to enhance border integrity and address emerging security concerns, they also raise profound legal and constitutional questions that demand careful scrutiny.

What the Bills propose

Bill C-2

Originally introduced in June 2025, Bill C-2 — titled the Strong Borders Act — is a broad omnibus bill encompassing border security, immigration enforcement, surveillance measures, financial regulation, and inter-agency information sharing.
Key features include:

  • Expanded powers under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) for the government to cancel, suspend or modify immigration documents (work permits, study permits, permanent‐resident cards, temporary resident permits etc.), or to halt acceptance of new applications, on grounds of “public interest”.
  • A new ineligibility regime for asylum/refugee claims: for instance, persons entering after 24 June 2020 who delay filing a claim beyond one year may become ineligible for regular refugee hearings and instead be diverted to a more limited “pre-removal risk assessment” (PRRA) process.
  • Significant expansions of surveillance, data‐sharing and disclosure powers: for example, amendments that authorize a Minister (Citizenship & Immigration) to disclose personal information to other federal/provincial agencies, or to obtain subscriber information and transmission data from telecom / digital service providers under certain circumstances.
  • Amendments to the Customs Act and Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and other statutes, designed to respond to cross‐border crime, illicit drug trafficking (e.g., fentanyl precursors), export controls and financial crime.
    These broad changes triggered strong opposition from civil society and refugee/migrant rights organizations, who argued that the bill erodes fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international refugee-law obligations. Canadian Council for Refugees

Bill C-12

In October 2025, the government introduced Bill C-12 (formally titled the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act).
The government describes it as a more focused or streamlined legislative framework: “to enable Parliament to pass these priorities … while permitting additional time to evaluate the other measures announced in June 2025.”
Key elements of Bill C-12 include:

  • Modernized powers for border, immigration and law-enforcement agencies to “be more effective now and in the future” in managing immigration and border systems.
  • Provisions allowing for cancellation, suspension or amendment of immigration documents, and stopping or suspending new applications, with improved information-sharing among the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and federal/provincial/territorial partners.
  • Continued emphasis on immigration control as part of a security-frame-work: for example, managing “surges” in asylum claims, streamlining decisions, strengthening the immigration system’s integrity.
  • Some of the more controversial provisions from Bill C-2 have reportedly been removed or deferred in Bill C-12 (for example the “lawful access” provision to telecommunications data and mail inspection, and a proposed ban on large cash donations/transactions over $10,000).
    Nevertheless, critics argue that Bill C-12 retains many of the most serious immigration enforcement and refugee-rights limiting measures of Bill C-2.

 

Legal and Rights-based Implications

At our firm, we recognize the legitimate objective of ensuring border integrity and national security. However, these goals must be pursued in a manner consistent with constitutional protections, fundamental justice and Canada’s international legal commitments.

Key red flags and areas for monitoring:

  1. Due process and procedural fairness
    The power to cancel, suspend or modify immigration documents or applications en masse, on a “public interest” basis, without individualized assessment, raises serious concerns about fairness and the right to be heard. Similarly, limiting access to full refugee hearings (e.g., delaying beyond one-year bar) means claimants may be diverted to a PRRA process that has far lower approval rates. These raise questions under section 7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter, as well as international refugee law protections (e.g., non-refoulement).
  2. Privacy and information/disclosure powers
    The expansion of data-sharing and disclosure powers among federal, provincial and possibly foreign agencies triggers section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 12/13 (cruel and unusual treatment) concerns. For example, the acknowledgment that Bill C-2 is intended in part to enable ratification of the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on cyber-crime, raises questions about cross-border access to subscriber/transmission data. In Bill C-12, while some of those provisions were removed, the underlying architecture of enhanced information-sharing remains. The challenge for counsel will be to monitor how these new powers are operationalized: what thresholds (“reasonable suspicion”, warrant, etc) apply, how oversight is maintained, and whether ministerial discretion is unbounded.
  3. Refugee, asylum and international law obligations
    Canada has obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Convention against Torture, including the principle of non-refoulement. Critics including Amnesty International Canada warn that the asylum-claims restrictions in these bills undermine those commitments.
    Examples: A retroactive bar for claims made more than one year after entry, removal of “designated countries of origin” regime (in Bill C-2) or imposition of mass document cancellation powers without hearings. Legal counsel must consider whether these reforms could lead to Canada being in breach of its international refugee law obligations, and whether Charter rights are engaged.
  4. Role of Ministerial discretion and broad public-interest tests
    The use of “public interest” as a standard for sweeping document suspension or cancellation gives significant latitude to executive discretion. Without strong safeguards (notice, reasons, representation, review), this poses major rights risks. As one civil-society network put it: “Bill C-2 is the expansion of a deportation machine … sweeping new powers to cancel immigration status without individual evaluation.”
    Monitoring how these powers are drafted in regulation and deployed will be critical.

Our Firm’s Role — At Gerami Law

We believe that border security and human rights protection are not mutually exclusive. Canada’s legal framework must reflect both its commitment to national security and its obligation to uphold human dignity and the rule of law.

Accordingly, we will:

  • Monitor the implementation of these legislative measures to ensure compliance with our clients’ Charter rights and Canada’s international human rights obligations.
  • Challenge any administrative or legislative actions that unjustifiably limit the rights of any refugees, migrants, or permanent residents we serve.
  • Monitor the use of surveillance and enforcement powers to protect the privacy rights of our clients — ensuring transparency, accountability and minimal intrusion.

Closing Thoughts

As these bills advance through Parliament, legal vigilance and principled advocacy will be essential. While the government’s objectives – securing borders, combating organised crime, countering illicit drug flows – are valid, they do not justify sweeping reforms that undermine due process, weaken international protections, or erode privacy rights.

In the months ahead, we must ensure that the integrity of Canada’s immigration system is strengthened with rights, not at their expense.