RAN Canada Statement on Bill C-12

Introduction

The Refugee Advisory Network of Canada (RAN Canada) affirms its commitment to the protection of refugee rights and Canada’s obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and International refugee law.

After reviewing Bill C-12, the testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on October 30, 2025 and the mobilization of the leading refugee organizations, we must state unequivocally: RAN Canada opposes Bill C-12’s amendments to IRPA, particularly those creating new asylum ineligibility rules and the broad document-cancellation powers granted to the Governor in Council.

RAN Canada joins the Migrant and Refugee-led organizations, Canadian Civil Liberties Associations, Amnesty International, and other groups in advocacy of opposing the government of Canada’s Bill C-12 which deny refugee protection and asylum seeking process.

RAN Canada strongly rejects the amendments to Bill C-12 to IRPA and its negative impact on refugees seeking asylum in Canada. 

Context 

Bill C-12 grants the Governor in Council sweeping authority to suspend, vary, or cancel immigration documents including work permits, study permits, and permanent resident visas without clear criteria, judicial oversight, or meaningful safeguards. The term “public interest” is undefined and dangerously broad, opening the door to discriminatory or politically motivated decision-making.

New sections 87.301 and 87.302 would enable mass cancellations of immigration applications or documents affecting entire classes of people. This power mirrors historical legislative practices that were later repealed for being overly broad and discriminatory. Such measures are incompatible with decades of Canadian jurisprudence affirming the right to procedural fairness for refugees and migrants. 

The Bill proposes two major changes to IRPA’s eligibility rules:

• A one-year deadline to file an asylum claim after entering Canada.

(Minister Diab: “asylum claims made more than one year after the initial arrival in Canada… will no longer be referred.”) 

• A 14-day deadline for people who cross irregularly from the U.S. to make their claim.

(Minister Diab and Hollmann: “claims by those crossing irregularly from the United States and waiting more than 14 days to apply will also be ineligible.”)

These rules contravene people's access to a fair refugee hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board and instead, relegate them to the limited and restrictive Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The PRRA process is not equivalent to a refugee hearing, lacks procedural safeguards, and historically produces extremely low acceptance rates. 

These measures disregard the realities faced by people fleeing persecution, trauma, violence, or threats from home governments. Many individuals do not understand the system immediately upon arrival, are fearful of authorities, or only later face new risks due to changing circumstances in their country of origin. Denial of a fair access to refugee protection on the basis of ineligibility contradicts foundational refugee protection principles. 

Additionally, this Bill fundamentally expands the government’s ability to share personal information across IRCC, CBSA, provincial governments, law enforcement agencies, and other departments. During testimony, officials explained that the Bill would allow broad, real-time exchange of immigration, citizenship, and passport data between ministries; new agreements enabling sharing with provincial/territorial programs, law enforcement, and border enforcement; internal data-sharing across IRCC that currently does not exist; automated sharing of biometric and biographic information with the United States under an expanded bilateral agreement. 

Concerns

Assistant Deputy Minister (Protection and Family Programs), made key assertions in defense of Bill C-12, which have been of great concern on the overall presentation of this bill. A bare assertion of constitutionality is not proof. The Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, Refugee Law Lab, and other organizations have already signaled constitutional challenges, identifying violations of:

Section 7 (life, liberty, security of the person): because an arbitrary deadline may lead to refoulement.

Section 15 (equality): disproportionately harming trauma survivors, women fleeing gender-based violence, LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, and people needing time to escape abusers.

Section 2(d) and 2(b): by undermining access to counsel and meaningful opportunity to present a refugee narrative.

The Committee itself heard that these provisions will be appealed, and that no preparation had been undertaken by the government to defend them, leading to waste resources and longer waiting times, making the system truly inaccessible. 

The one-year filing requirement does not justify excluding people who cannot apply on the prescribed deadline, including survivors of sexual violence who need months to disclose trauma, individuals suffering from PTSD or depression, people who remain unaware of the system due to language barriers, disabilities, or exploitation; and those who spend their first months in Canada under coercive control such as domestic violence or forced labour. Moreover, the government has not presented any evidence-based analysis to show that a one-year period is adequate for all categories of vulnerable claimants. 

As we acknowledge the government’s position that individuals rendered ineligible could still access the PRRA process – premised on the argument that it applies “the same criteria” as refugee determination – it is important to emphasize that PRRA is not equivalent to an IRB hearing. Even committee members acknowledged that PRRA is “not as robust,” and the reasons are clear: PRRA officers rarely hold oral hearings, which undermines proper credibility assessment; acceptance rates are dramatically lower than those of the IRB; the process functions narrowly and often excludes new evidence; and claimants typically have far more limited access to legal counsel at this stage. Relying on PRRA as a primary source lowers the standard of protection for thousands of  refugees seeking asylum and cannot be considered a meaningful substitute for a full, independent refugee hearing. 

Following this dangerous narrative, RAN Canada has also made its determination on standing in possible grounds for the greater risk of administrative detention. In this context, the expansion of document cancellation powers does not merely create administrative instability; it directly fuels mass immigration detentions. Individuals whose documents are abruptly invalidated become prime targets for CBSA enforcement, and without valid status, - are far more likely to be apprehended, held in detention for identity verification, deemed flight risks, or detained while awaiting removal. The fear of being detained will also push people deeper underground, reducing their access to health care, report workplace exploitation, or seek legal advice, which in turn increases vulnerability to trafficking, abuse, and wage theft. This shift mirrors punitive U.S. immigration frameworks where aggressive document enforcement has produced widespread rights violations and the rapid criminalization of migrant communities. It would be normalizing detention as a routine tool rather than a last resort. 

On the matter of data sharing and alleged efficiency, while information coordination could improve the system, Bill C-12 lacks clear safeguards and protection of refugee data,without defined limits or transparent oversight mechanisms. As a result, serious individual and human rights risks arise, and access to refugee protection is further limited. The risks include:

A) Misuse or overreach

Mass data transfer across ministries creates opportunities for surveillance, discriminatory profiling, or punitive enforcement actions especially in combination with new cancellation powers.

B) Harm to vulnerable groups

Refugee claimants, undocumented persons, survivors of trauma, and individuals fearing state authorities may be discouraged from accessing social services or legal pathways due to fear of information being shared with enforcement bodies. These measures do not have a proper study in the direct harm it would cause in LGBTQI+ refugee communities (where in many countries could lead to death penalty) as well as women fleeing on the basis of Gender Based Violence. 

C) Undefined limitations

Although the government spoke of “strict limits” and written agreements, the bill itself does not define the scope, purpose, or boundaries of the data transfer powers. Many details are left to regulation, leaving critical protections uncertain.

D) Risks to privacy and Charter rights

The scale of inter-ministerial sharing contemplated by Bill C-12 exceeds what is necessary for program administration and could violate rights to privacy, due process, and equality.

E) Lack of consultation

As acknowledged in testimony and civil society submissions, these amendments were  drafted without meaningful consultation with refugees with lived experience, refugee lead organizations, migrant support groups, civil liberties associations, community organizations, or human rights experts.

Conclusion 

As the study of Bill C-12 continues, The Refugee Advisory Network of Canada urges the Parliament to dismiss the process further. The bill is inconsistent with Canada’s legal obligations, values, and commitments to fairness and human rights. 

Its provisions endanger due process, restrict access to asylum, increase the undocumented population, create sweeping executive powers, and authorize intrusive and poorly regulated data-sharing across government systems. Canada must uphold a system that is fair, transparent, rights-based, and humane not one that expands surveillance, increases precarity, and strips vulnerable people of protection. This bill reflects a troubling absence of communication and transparency, especially when the lives of people like us who are refugees with lived experiences and represent the RAN Canada and the communities we serve would be directly and profoundly affected. 

Canada cannot continue to present itself internationally as a welcoming humanitarian country that upholds international law, while simultaneously advancing legislation rooted in  denial of fair and due process and exclusion. At the same time, while we recognize that Bill C-12 is distinct from Bill C-2, both bills are moving forward in parallel, and together they pose a severe threat to refugee rights and human dignity. For these reasons, we call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-12, halt Bill C-2, and to engage in meaningful consultation with our Network, advisors with lived experience, frontline organizations, and affected communities before pursuing any further reforms. 

RAN Canada has always supported the government’s position at the global policymaking spaces and welcomed its support of refugee protection. We hope the government looks into the statement constructively and makes the right move for the right cause.