Senate Pushes Back On Bill C-12, But Immigration Powers Intact With No Amendments

Last Updated On 24 February 2026, 11:08 AM EST (Toronto Time)

In a significant development for Canada’s immigration landscape, the Senate Standing Committee has recommended the removal of broad immigration powers from Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act.

The committee’s report, released on February 23, 2026, calls for the deletion of Parts 5 through 8 of the legislation, which contain the most controversial provisions that aim to bestow special powers for cancelling or modifying immigration documents en masse, such as existing study permits or work permits.

This recommendation represents a substantial response to concerns raised by immigration advocates, legal experts, and international organizations who testified before the committee.

The report specifically addresses fears about mass cancellation powers, retroactive asylum deadlines, and information-sharing provisions that witnesses argued could lead to executive overreach and disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations.

Bill C-12 Latest Update (February 24, 2026): Despite the Social Affairs Committee’s recommendations to remove Parts 5 through 8, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs has approved the immigration measures in Bill C-12 without any amendments.

The National Security Committee, which holds final responsibility for amendments, rejected all proposed changes during its February 23 session.

This includes amendments to extend the one-year asylum deadline to three years, create exemptions for minors who entered Canada with their parents, and narrow the definition of “public interest” for mass document cancellations.

Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak’s amendment to change the ineligibility period for refugee claims from one year to three years was voted down.

Senator Suze Youance’s amendment to exempt minors from the one-year rule was also defeated, though Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab indicated she is considering a similar exemption through regulations.

Independent Senator Tony Dean read a letter on behalf of Ministers Anandasangaree and Diab defending the bill, noting bipartisan support in the House of Commons and British Columbia Premier David Eby’s call for passage without delay.

The bill now faces a second reading vote deadline of February 26, 2026.

With the committee stage complete and immigration measures intact, Royal Assent could come as early as March 2026.

The exact implementation details and any regulatory exemptions will only become clear once the final legislation passes and receives Royal Assent.

Immigration applicants should continue monitoring developments as the parliamentary process concludes.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee’s report contains recommendations that, if adopted, would fundamentally reshape Bill C-12.

After hearing testimony from a wide range of stakeholders including the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, the UNHCR, and the Migrant Rights Network, the committee expressed concerns that parts of the proposed legislation could lead to overreach of executive powers and have disproportionate effects on women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and children.

The committee’s primary recommendation calls for the complete deletion of Parts 5 through 8 of the bill.

Failing that, the committee recommended substantial amendments including more robust parliamentary oversight and a sunset clause requiring parliamentary review.

The report was welcomed by civil society groups who had been blocked from testifying in the House of Commons.

Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, stated that when senators listened to people who would be impacted by Bill C-12, they heard how dangerous it is and called for deletion of the immigration sections.

This response indicates that the concerns raised by advocacy groups resonated with committee members during their deliberations.

Key Concerns Addressed by the Committee

Mass Cancellation Powers

One of the most contentious provisions in Bill C-12 grants the federal cabinet authority to cancel or modify immigration documents en masse, including permanent resident visas and permanent residence cards, if deemed in the public interest.

The Senate committee’s report raised concerns about the breadth of these powers and their potential for misuse.

Witnesses drew parallels with historical orders used against Japanese immigrants and Japanese Canadians, labour organizers, and Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany during the first half of the 20th century.

While the government stated these powers are intended to address fraud, administrative errors, public health, and national security issues, the committee recommended changes to limit the definition of public interest or remove these provisions entirely.

One-Year Asylum Deadline

The committee addressed provisions that would bar people who first came to Canada more than one year prior from filing refugee claims with the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Under the current bill, this provision would apply retroactively to June 24, 2020, affecting anyone who entered Canada after that date.

Witnesses warned that this timeline could prevent someone who came to Canada as a baby on a family vacation from making a conventional asylum claim years later if their circumstances changed.

The committee recommended extending this period from one year to five years and removing the retroactive application, suggesting instead that any timeline begin only after the bill receives Royal Assent.

The bill proposes giving the government power to share personal information of migrants, permanent residents, and naturalized citizens with other federal departments, provinces, territories, and foreign governments.

The committee recommended exempting permanent residents and naturalized citizens from information-sharing provisions and introducing mandatory privacy commissioner review.

Concerns About a Two-Tier Asylum System

A central theme in the committee hearings was concern that Bill C-12 would create a two-tier asylum system.

Under the legislation, individuals who miss the one-year deadline would have their claims directed to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment rather than receiving a full hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Witnesses including the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International argued that the PRRA process would not guarantee in-person hearings for vulnerable people, including members of the LGBTQ+ community and survivors of domestic violence.

The UNHCR recommended that mandatory hearings be added to ensure an individual’s right to be heard, unless overwhelming evidence supports accepting their case based on written submissions alone.

The government defended the PRRA pathway, with Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab telling the committee that when a person’s protection needs are clear, this route can produce quick approvals.

She noted that 37 percent of asylum claims filed between June and October 2025 would be affected by the one-year measure, representing approximately 19,000 of 50,000 applications.

The Government’s Position on Bill C-12

The federal government has defended Bill C-12 as necessary to address challenges facing Canada’s immigration system.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab submitted a letter to the National Security Committee outlining their rationale, noting that asylum claims dropped by one-third in 2025 compared to 2024 but arguing that additional measures are needed.

The ministers pointed to bipartisan support for the bill, noting that only a handful of MPs voted against it in the House of Commons.

They emphasized that the Immigration and Refugee Board currently faces a backlog of approximately 300,000 claims, with average processing times reaching 17 months, and argued that streamlined processes would benefit both the system and genuine refugees.

What This Means for Immigration Applicants

For individuals currently in Canada on temporary permits or those considering immigration applications, the Senate committee’s recommendations signal that lawmakers are actively scrutinizing the bill’s most contentious provisions.

However, the final outcome remains uncertain until the legislative process concludes.

Those with pending applications or valid immigration documents should continue to maintain their status according to current rules.

The legislation, in whatever form it ultimately takes, will include transition provisions that will be detailed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada once the bill becomes law.

Individuals considering asylum claims should seek legal advice promptly to understand their options under both current rules and potential future changes.

The timeline requirements proposed in Bill C-12, if enacted, could affect eligibility for full Immigration and Refugee Board hearings.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee’s recommendations represent a meaningful response to concerns raised by immigration advocates and legal experts.

As Bill C-12 moves toward final passage, the provisions that ultimately become law will shape Canada’s immigration system for years to come.

Applicants and temporary residents should stay informed and seek professional guidance as the situation develops.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

If the Senate committee recommended removing these provisions, why might they still become law?

Senate committee recommendations are advisory. The final decision on amendments rests with the full Senate, and any amended bill must return to the House of Commons for approval. Given the compressed timeline and government support, provisions may pass even without incorporating all committee recommendations.

Should I file an asylum claim immediately before the bill passes?

This depends on your individual circumstances. Filing a claim has legal implications regardless of Bill C-12, and the decision should be based on whether you have genuine protection needs. Consult an immigration lawyer who can assess your specific situation and advise on timing considerations.

Could the government implement these powers through regulations even if removed from the bill?

Regulations must have a statutory basis in legislation. If specific provisions are removed from Bill C-12, the government would lack authority to implement those measures through regulations alone. However, future bills could reintroduce similar provisions.

How will I know when the final version of Bill C-12 becomes law?

Royal Assent is publicly announced and the final legislation is published on the Parliament of Canada website. IRCC will also issue guidance on implementation timelines and transition provisions once the bill becomes law.

What recourse exists if problematic provisions pass despite committee recommendations?

Individuals affected by the legislation may challenge specific decisions through judicial review at the Federal Court. Advocacy groups may also pursue Charter challenges if provisions are believed to violate constitutional rights.

Kamal Deep Singh, RCIC

Kamal Deep Singh, RCIC (Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant) licensed by CICC (formerly known as ICCRC) with member number R708618. He brings extensive knowledge of immigration law and new changes to rapidly evolving IRCC.