Senate Approves Tweaks to Save Face
The Senate first received Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act for review on December 11, 2025. It was ultimately passed back to the House of Commons with certain amendments on March 12.
The Senate's first approved amendments came from the bill's sponsor in the Upper House, Tony Dean. His was a lame attempt at addressing the harsh criticism meted out by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI), mandated to study and report on those sections of the bill (Parts 5-8) that dealt with immigration and asylum.
SOCI's first recommendation had been to entirely remove those parts of the bill from the proposed legislation. In the case where that recommendation was discarded, it proposed 10 others, the last of which was that parts of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act "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."
Rather than a "sunset clause" that would have automatically terminated the measures contained in the bill after a fixed period, Senator Dean's amendment merely created a time-bound review that functions only as an oversight mechanism, which the Senate had approved.
Another amendment the Upper House agreed to, proposed by Senator Paulette Senior, clarified that C-12's expanded immigration information-sharing power provisions would not apply to Canadian citizens or permanent residents. SOCI had made a similar recommendation in its report, "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." Although her proposal did meet with the approval at the Senate, it was later rejected by the representatives of the cartel parties in the House of Commons.
Concerned Senators' Attempts at Changes to Bill
Some Senators suggested changes to lessen the impacts of the bill, but time and again they were voted down by the majority in the Upper House.
Senator Suze Youance, another SOCI member, began her intervention by recounting how her office had been swamped with telephone calls and over 1,000 emails from the public concerned over the consequences of Bill C-12. She reported that over 300 organizations across the land had spoken out against the bill "which they believe flout the rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and stand in stark contrast to Canada's international obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees."
She then took issue with a clause in the bill, which provides that the date of first entry into Canada be used to determine future eligibility for asylum. Here she argued that children should be excluded from this provision, as it may prevent them from later applying for international protection. Her proposal was that a claim should not be deemed ineligible if the applicant was under 18 years of age on the date of their first entry into Canada.
For her part, Senator Paula Simons tried introducing amendments on Part 7 of the bill, proposing a regulatory power to prescribe circumstances in which an officer can terminate an application for a visa or permit or other document, or can cancel, suspend or vary a visa or other document. Her proposed modifications also dealt with orders made in the so-called public interest, in which the Governor-in-Council can directly bar, suspend or terminate en masse applications for visas and permits and other documents.
She argued against giving the executive the power to take away the rights or privileges of thousands of people at their sole discretion and proposed that Parliament retain "an emergency override on any order or regulation the government makes under these new powers."
Her proposed amendments would have required "that any order or regulation made by the Governor-in-Council under Part 7 of the bill be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days. Then, if it were warranted, each house of Parliament could, in accordance with its own rules, choose to pass a resolution that the particular order or regulation be annulled. Both chambers would need to pass such a resolution in order for it to take effect so the unelected Senate could not unilaterally thwart the will of the elected chamber."
Senator Farah Mohamed's proposal was for a veritable sunset clause, whereby certain provisions in the act would cease to have effect after five years.
"Bill C-12 is presented as a response to a changing global environment, rising geopolitical instability, increasing irregular migration, evolving security threats and mounting administrative backlogs," she said.
She also noted that during committee review of Bill C-12, neither the Minister of Immigration nor departmental officials were able to provide a breakdown of the roughly 300,000 cases currently in the immigration backlog, including how many involve students, asylum seekers or economic migrants. She questioned how the Senate could be asked to make decisions of such magnitude without the proper evidence. She also raised the concern that several measures in C-12 may not eliminate administrative backlogs but "simply relocate them."
Senator Mary Coyle explained that her amendment was a modification of SOCI's Recommendation 8, "to increase the ineligibility period for refugee claims from the one year indicated in Bill C-12 to five years from the most recent date of entry." She further informed, "Currently, for the In-Canada Asylum Program, there is no time limit for individuals making a refugee protection claim."
"Colleagues,"she argued, "we have heard that Canada has a backlog of applicants in its system that is estimated to be around 300,000 -- there's not much data available on what it is and why it is. It makes sense to support appropriate measures to address this situation" as it "might actually be causing harm to those desperate to have their claims settled and their lives moved out of limbo and insecurity and onto a safe and secure track so that they can get on with their lives, provide for their families and contribute to Canada."
Her amendment would have extended the one year eligibility bar to two years. This "recognizes the need to address the backlog of asylum seekers while creating a more reasonable timeline, particularly for certain vulnerable applicants -- those who will need more time to come forward and who should not be denied their rights to a fulsome consideration of their circumstances."
Senator Yuen Pau Woo proposed changes that would have required mandatory oral hearings within the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) process "for individuals who are captured by the new ineligibility provisions." He likened his amendment to a type of "last protection," or "a modest safeguard." He further explained that his amendment would simply ensure "that when a person is diverted to the PRRA process, they are guaranteed an opportunity to appear before a decision-maker through an oral hearing before a final decision is made."
Finally, Senator Marilou McPhedran described her proposed change as one that "addresses the transitional provision of Bill C-12." It "currently applies the one-year asylum application deadline retroactively to June 2025," the date that the bill's predecessor, Bill C-2, was tabled in the House of Commons. In the interests of "procedural fairness and the rule of law," she explained that her amendment would have removed that retroactivity and activated "the deadline as of the date of Royal Assent of this bill."
However, it was all for naught as Bill C-12 was passed on March 26 by the House of Commons without taking heed of the proposed amendments from the Senate.
So much for the "sober thought of the few" in the face of the great indifference and inhumanity of the elitely accommodated many!
This article was published in
Volume 56 Number 3 - March-April, 2026
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/TML2026/Articles/M560313.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca