Law, Technology, and Accountability: Reimagining Canadian Immigration for the 21st Century

Executive Summary

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) has served as Canada’s immigration framework for more than two decades, enabling a system admired worldwide for balancing economic growth with humanitarian values. But IRPA is showing its age. As global pressures intensify—from rising displacement and inequality to technological disruption and democratic erosion—Canada needs a modern legal foundation to support an immigration system that is fair, transparent, and resilient.

This submission reflects the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section commitment to that goal. Drawing on the insights of legal professionals who engage with IRPA daily, we outline 100 recommendations to strengthen the Act and Regulations and ensure it lives up to its original vision. These proposals are not just legal refinements; they are grounded in a belief that Canada’s immigration system must be people-centered, operationally sound, and consistent with our constitutional and international obligations while safeguarding integrity and security.

A central theme of our submission is the need to restore balance. IRPA was conceived as a facilitative framework to advance diverse policy goals: family reunification, economic contribution, refugee protection, and nation-building. While enforcement, security, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system remain fundamental policy priorities, the delivery framework has increasingly shifted toward a model that prioritizes risk aversion and administrative control. This evolution has led to a discernible divergence from the Act’s core objectives of fairness, transparency, and humanitarian consideration. The resulting system is less predictable, opaquer, and often misaligned with the principles it was designed to uphold. While identifying and addressing bad actors is indeed essential to protecting the security and integrity of the immigration system, doing so at the expense of procedural fairness and public trust can ultimately undermine the very objectives enforcement seeks to uphold.

Modernization must start with governance. We recommend curbing the overuse of Ministerial Instructions and policy-making outside of the legislative framework, which has contributed to an unpredictable and fragmented system. Accountability, transparency, and consistency must be restored to the law-making and implementation process.

Equally important is the experience of users. Immigration decisions profoundly affect individuals’ lives and rights. Yet the system remains difficult to navigate, poorly communicated, and uneven in how it delivers procedural fairness. We recommend that IRPA explicitly incorporate user experience as a legal value. Plain language, real-time information, accessible formats, and enforceable service standards must be core to system design.

Technology is already reshaping immigration operations, and its influence will only grow. Artificial intelligence and automated decision-making are powerful tools that can support efficiency—but only if they are subject to clear legal rules. We call for a rights-based framework to govern digital tools, with transparency, explainability, and oversight built in. Fairness cannot be optional in the design of automated systems.

Our recommendations also tackle long-standing systemic gaps. We propose reforms to family reunification rules that better reflect diverse Canadian families. We call for a coherent and compassionate refugee protection system that treats inland and overseas applicants with equal dignity. We ask that these same principles of fairness and transparency be adopted with pathways rolled out in response to urgent humanitarian crises. We urge amendments to rein in overly broad inadmissibility provisions that currently lead to disproportionate and unfair outcomes. We also emphasize that legislative modernization must be paired with operational reform to reduce backlogs, delays, and inconsistencies that undermine the system as a whole.

Finally, we recognize that immigration is a shared societal project. IRPA must better reflect the collaborative roles of federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and civil society actors in shaping and delivering immigration outcomes. A whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach is essential to building public trust and institutional strength.

This submission is offered as a roadmap—not only for technical amendment, but for principled renewal. Immigration has long been one of Canada’s greatest strengths. We believe it can remain so, if we ensure that the law guiding it reflects the values, needs, and aspirations of the country it serves.

I. Introduction

A Shared Vision for Immigration in the 21^st Century

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) has been the cornerstone of Canada’s immigration legal framework for over two decades. Since its enactment in 2001, the Act has enabled Canada to build one of the most admired immigration systems in the world—one that balances economic growth with humanitarian commitments and reflects the values of diversity, inclusion, and respect for the rule of law. Yet the IRPA is now showing its age. As Canada navigates a more complex and uncertain global landscape, the need for a comprehensive and future-ready modernization of the Act is increasingly urgent.

The immigration landscape has shifted dramatically in the past two decades. Globally, we are witnessing record levels of forced displacement, growing income inequality, and the erosion of democratic norms. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, over 117 million people were forcibly displaced by the end of 2023—nearly triple the number just ten years prior.¹ At the same time, rising populism and anti-immigrant sentiment have placed new pressures on governments to tighten controls and limit access, sometimes at the expense of fairness and transparency.

The landscape has changed. Coherent and internally consistent updates are required that are responsive to current pressures and demands. A blueprint for transparent, accountable, and human-centered immigration reform grounded in values, driven by vision with a goal of modernizing Canada’s immigration law and policy in the current global backdrop is challenging. There is an urgent need to move from policy drift to legal clarity to reforming Canada’s immigration framework with renewed purpose and principle. Resetting the system building on the many innovations Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has initiated must be grounded in a rights-based, transparent, and technologically ethical immigration platform that bears the hallmarks of legislative restraint, and stakeholder collaboration.

At the forefront, technological transformation is further reshaping how immigration systems operate. Artificial intelligence (AI), automated decision-making (ADM), biometric data collection, and predictive analytics are being increasingly deployed in Canadian immigration processes, often without sufficient transparency, accountability or program integrity.² While these tools promise greater efficiency, they also carry risks of systemic bias, opacity, and the erosion of procedural fairness—particularly for racialized applicants and those without legal representation.³ Without clear legislative guardrails, Canada risks embedding these vulnerabilities into the very structure of immigration decision-making.⁴

Domestically, Canada’s immigration system faces significant operational challenges: lengthy backlogs, inconsistent processing, under-resourcing, and diminishing avenues for redress. While program integrity and fraud prevention remain legitimate concerns, there is a growing perception that the IRPA has evolved into an enforcement-driven tool that prioritizes exclusion and deterrence. The IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) stand as our expression of the objectives and vision of our immigration law, policy and delivery as a nation. The law, the technology and the talent behind this legal expression should focus on enhanced access, individualization and applicant-centric processing to move past systemic issues. As the use of Ministerial Instructions, temporary public policy carve-outs, and discretionary decisions has increased, so too has public confusion and concern about fairness and predictability.⁵

The breadth and rigidity of the IRPA’s admissibility provisions have further contributed to this imbalance. Provisions related to misrepresentation, organized criminality, security and cessation are applied without sufficient flexibility or clarity, sometimes producing disproportionate and harsh outcomes. Many of these rules fail to reflect the lived realities of applicants or the evolving context in which immigration decisions are made. In parallel, access to justice concerns are increasingly acute—whether through systemic underfunding of legal aid, tribunals, courts and limited procedural safeguards for vulnerable groups, or gaps in how applicants are informed of their rights and obligations.⁶

Finally, the overall push to reduce Canada’s immigrant population and to combat fraud have lead to idiosyncrasies and erasures that compromise the fairness of the regime as a whole. There can be no doubt that program integrity is an important goal, and that clear and decisive steps must be taken to prevent bad actors from exploiting the system to gain advantages to which they are not entitled. However, these barriers should not prevent genuine refugees from gaining access to protection, nor genuine families from reuniting in a timely way. Even more fundamentally, change must be undertaken in a manner that abides the principles of democratic law reform, and respect for the rule of law.

It is within this context that the Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA Section) puts forward this foundational submission that we anticipate will evolve over time. We recognize and support the government’s efforts to manage a complex system in the public interest—but we also believe that a new legislative vision is needed - one that better aligns the IRPA with Canada’s human rights obligations, embraces technological change transparently, and embeds user experience and access to justice as central pillars of good governance.

The CBA speaks with the collective voice of over 40,000 legal professionals, including immigration lawyers, tribunal members, judges, and practitioners from every area of law. We are committed to upholding the rule of law, promoting access to justice, and supporting the fair and effective operation of Canada’s immigration system. Our members bring deep, practical insights from across sectors—identifying inefficiencies, flagging unintended consequences, and helping test how reforms function in real-world settings. This submission reflects not only our expertise, but our readiness to partner with government in shaping policies, pilots, and legislation that are principled, pragmatic, and responsive to the people they serve.

This submission advances a legislative agenda rooted in six core principles:

1. Human rights;
2. Innovation;
3. Transparency;
4. Natural justice;
5. Collaboration; and
6. User experience.

Our recommendations are supported by the expertise of legal professionals across Canada. We believe that with bold yet balanced reforms, the IRPA can be renewed for the 21^st century—protecting both the integrity of our immigration system and the dignity of the people it serves.

II. Governance and Oversight: Embedding Accountability in the System and Realigning Canada’s Immigration Framework with the IRPA’s Objectives

This shift is not merely procedural; it is philosophical. The frequent and opaque use of Ministerial Instructions to set processing priorities or limit intake, the proliferation of temporary public policies that bypass normal legislative scrutiny, and the expansion of inadmissibility provisions without corresponding safeguards have contributed to a model that is more reactive than principled. The legislative architecture of the IRPA is being used to create parallel systems of immigration management—ones that are harder to understand, less predictable, and often at odds with the Act’s stated objectives.

This evolution has had real consequences. It has eroded public trust, particularly among applicants and representatives who experience the system as inconsistent and opaque. It has reinforced inequities—especially for those unable to navigate discretionary processes or access legal support. It has strained the transparency and accountability mechanisms that underpin a rule-of-law approach to immigration.

The CBA Section believes it is time to reclaim the purpose of the IRPA. The Act must be repositioned as a people-centered legislative framework—one that enables integration, and fairness. Fraud prevention and risk management remain central, but they must serve broader objectives, not overshadow them, and seek balance. A modern IRPA should reflect Canada’s democratic values and legal commitments, promote confidence through clarity and consistency, and center the lived realities of those who rely on the immigration system.

Good governance requires more than efficiency—it requires transparency, consistency, and mechanisms for public accountability. In recent years, the architecture of immigration decision-making has shifted significantly toward executive discretion, often exercised through Ministerial Instructions, temporary public policies, and internal guidelines that bypass public scrutiny.⁷ While these tools offer flexibility, their frequent and opaque use has reduced predictability, limited access to redress, and undermined trust in the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.

The CBA Section supports a rebalancing of the IRPA to strengthen oversight and ensure that discretionary instruments are used in a manner that is transparent, principled, and democratically accountable. A modern immigration system must not only function well—it must be seen to function fairly and lawfully.

2.1 Reaffirming the Rule of Law In Immigration: Strengthening Immigration Law and Policy Through the Transparent and Democratic Application of the IRPA

The IRPA articulates a wide range of objectives, including the pursuit of economic and social benefits, the enrichment of Canada’s social and cultural fabric, the reunification of families, and the fulfillment of international obligations relating to refugees, all while safeguarding the integrity and security of the immigration system. Over time, however, the intended balance has shifted. What was designed as a facilitative framework has increasingly evolved into an enforcement-driven model, placing greater emphasis on risk management, deterrence, and administrative control at the expense of transparency, inclusion, and responsiveness. While prioritizing risk and security remains essential, these goals can be more effectively achieved through the thoughtful reforms we propose — reforms that reinforce integrity while restoring a balanced, human-centered approach consistent with the IRPA’s original vision.

There is a pervasive belief amongst the immigration applicant and authorized representative communities that immigration practice and delivery are becoming distanced from the IRPA’s core objectives and the prioritization of the use of Ministerial Instructions, public policies and techno-centric decision-making are sharply defining an immigration model that is top down rather than collaborative. However, the possibility for a more measured, and nuanced program is within reach. The system is in need of change, but we must ensure the pace, consistency and the mode of the changes are firmly grounded in Canada’s core legal and democratic values.

For example, the IRPA is increasingly treated as a tool of regulatory management and enforcement, rather than a legal framework for principled, transparent decision-making. Ministerial Instructions are now used not only to set priorities, but to curtail access and override existing application streams, often without public consultation or explanation. In 2008, one such instruction terminated thousands of Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) applications, some pending for up to eight years, with no meaningful opportunity for redress. This marked a shift toward discretionary control at the expense of due process.

The growing reliance on non-regulatory instruments weakens public confidence in the system’s integrity. Regulatory frameworks—such as those published through the Canada Gazette—require scrutiny, justification, and public input. Ministerial Instructions do not. The use of temporary public policies as substitutes for formal regulation departs from sound legislative practice. These tools should be constrained, clearly defined, and subject to public accountability.

Efficiency and nimbleness are often cited as reasons for use of non-regulatory tools for policy reform. However, too little attention is paid to what is lost with the erosion of democratic values and safeguards. We caution against any system that vests too much power in too few, and which allows pivotal change with too little contemplation. There is ample evidence in our current immigration landscape that this approach is not yielding good results.⁸

2.2 Aligning Ministerial Powers and Policy Making with the Objectives of the IRPA

Ministerial Instructions were introduced in the IRPA in 2008 via section 87.3 as a mechanism to address growing application inventories. Since then, their use has expanded dramatically, affecting intake volumes, selection criteria, processing priorities, and program closures. These instruments are not subject to parliamentary debate or regulatory process. They may be (and often are) issued without notice, consultation, or justification, and can override existing application rights or disrupt long-term plans made in reliance on earlier frameworks.

The use of temporary public policies has similarly increased. These tools now govern entire streams of immigration—including humanitarian pathways, economic pilots, and regularization initiatives. Unlike regulations, public policies are not published in draft, lack formal consultation, and may be applied unevenly across applicants. While they offer administrative convenience, they risk creating parallel systems of immigration management that lack transparency and accountability.

The CBA Section recommends that all Ministerial Instructions and public policies be subject to public consultation and impact assessment prior to implementation. At minimum, their legal rationale, operational goals, and anticipated effects should be disclosed. A predictable immigration system requires that policy changes be deliberative, not arbitrary.

2.3 Strengthening Independent Oversight: An Immigration Ombudsperson

To enhance institutional accountability and provide recourse for applicants and stakeholders, the CBA Section supports the establishment of an Immigration Ombudsperson.⁹ This office should be independent from IRCC, with authority to receive complaints, initiate investigations, monitor systemic issues, and report publicly to Parliament.

The Ombudsperson would not serve as an appeals body for individual cases, but rather as a complementary oversight mechanism with a mandate focused primarily on systemic issues, similar to the role played by an Auditor General. This model is used in other jurisdictions to promote transparency and to give voice to individuals navigating complex bureaucratic systems without meaningful support. To be effective, such an Office must be implemented in tandem with broader reforms that reduce the number of complaints through improved decision-making, greater transparency, and accountability at earlier stages in the system. If the Ombudsperson becomes a safety valve for individuals outside of the courts, it risks being overwhelmed and ultimately ineffective.

The Ombudsperson should have access to anonymized decision data, the ability to audit program delivery, and the mandate to issue annual public reports on key issues affecting applicants and decision-making integrity. This would help fill the current gap between front-line administration, reconsideration by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and Federal Court, and legislative oversight.

2.4 Ensuring Democratic Input into Immigration Policy

Immigration policy shapes the social and economic fabric of Canada. Decisions about who can enter, stay, or reunite with loved ones carry deep personal and societal consequences. Yet much of this policymaking now occurs outside traditional democratic processes—through operational bulletins, internal program instructions, and unpublished criteria that guide officer discretion. It is housed primarily on IRCC’s website, which makes the provisions difficult to collate, index and reference; particularly when they change or disappear over time. Taking immigration law-making out of the legislative and regulatory framework not only limits transparency and consistency—it weakens our democracy. In a global context where democratic institutions are under strain, preserving the proper role of Parliament in shaping immigration policy is more than a matter of good governance; it is essential to safeguarding the legitimacy of our democratic system.¹⁰

The CBA Section supports requiring that major policy changes—particularly those that affect eligibility, procedural rights, or new program streams—be subject to meaningful public input. Where regulations are used, the Canada Gazette process should be fully respected. Where policies are adopted administratively, public notice and stakeholder engagement should be built into the design process. As noted by the Auditor General and legal scholars, consistent and consultative policymaking strengthens both program outcomes and public legitimacy.¹¹

The CBA Section supports proposals to develop a rights-based framework for applicants that codifies essential procedural protections in the IRPA. This could include the right to timely and reasoned decisions, access to file information, meaningful recourse, and equitable treatment.

The CBA Section also supports the establishment of a citizen-stakeholder advisory panel on immigration to strengthen democratic participation in policymaking. Creating a structured forum where citizens, immigrants, experts, and frontline stakeholders can offer input on immigration reforms, service delivery, and emerging issues would increase democratic participation and public trust in immigration policy.¹² The forum could advise on equity and fairness issues and review the impact of policy changes on vulnerable groups. They could host community roundtables, forums, and surveys to bring grassroots voices into the national dialogue and partner with civil society for outreach and inclusion. We further recommend that their public annual recommendations to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship be tabled in Parliament or published on IRCC’s site.

2.5 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
1.	Limited Use of and Expanded Public Notice Requirements for Ministerial Instructions IRPA, s. 14.1, 87.3	In keeping with the 2013 CBA Resolution13, we recommend the IRPA be amended to limit the scope of Ministerial Instructions so the provisions cannot be used to terminate or significantly alter core immigration programs without legislative or regulatory processes. Require advance public notice, stakeholder consultation, and an Impact Assessment Statement (like in regulatory processes) before Ministerial Instructions are enacted. This would reinforce that binding legal instruments (such as program eligibility rules and applicant rights) must arise from legislation or regulation, not internal guidelines or policies. Require that any substantial change to immigration programs—especially those affecting antecedent rights—must pass through Parliamentary or regulatory scrutiny.
2.	Clarify and Constrain the Use of Public Policies IRPA, s. 25.2	Clarify and Constrain the Use of s. 25.2 Public Policies. Specifically, define "Public Policy" and "Ministerial Conditions" in the IRPA to prevent the creation of regulatory substitutes via ad hoc policies. Introduce a formalized process for the creation of public policies, including: A minimum notice period Public consultation Publication of eligibility rules in the Canada Gazette Legal reviewability based on principles of fairness and transparency.
3.	Creation of an Office of an independent Immigration Ombudsperson	Creation of an independent Immigration Ombudsperson reporting to Parliament, with a primary mandate to conduct systemic reviews, monitor fairness, and promote transparency and alignment with IRPA’s objectives. While the office may receive complaints, its focus should be on identifying trends and systemic concerns, not resolving individual cases. To be effective, the Ombudsperson must operate alongside improved decision-making and transparency measures that reduce reliance on post hoc oversight. The office would also support coordinated federal, provincial, and municipal engagement to reflect diverse regional needs.
4.	Embed a Rights Based Framework with the IRPA including a civil society-stakeholder advisory panel.	Embed a rights-based framework in the IRPA that mandates public reporting, impact assessments, and the creation of a civil society-stakeholder advisory panel to strengthen democratic participation and accountability in immigration policy development.

Strong immigration governance requires transparency, accountability, a commitment to procedural fairness, as well as security and integrity. The IRPA’s current framework lacks public oversight in respect of discretionary decision-making. The CBA Section urges Parliament to enhance democratic input and strengthen independent oversight. A fair system must be not only efficient, but just.

Reclaiming the purpose of the IRPA requires more than technical adjustments—it requires a renewed commitment to the values that justify the Act’s existence. By rebalancing the legislation toward fairness, clarity, and inclusion, and by treating fraud prevention as a processing priority rather than a driver for substantive policy development, Canada can restore trust in the immigration system and ensure that the IRPA once again serves the people it was meant to protect.

At the same time, robust enforcement mechanisms must be maintained and strengthened to identify, deter, and penalize those who seek to exploit or abuse the system. A modernized IRPA must strike a careful balance: it must vigorously target bad-faith actors through transparent, rights-respecting processes, while safeguarding the dignity and fair treatment of genuine applicants.

A renewed IRPA must also uphold the fair treatment of vulnerable persons—including children and youth—consistent with Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Immigration law and policy must give substantial weight to the best interests of the child and recognize the unique vulnerabilities of youth and others facing systemic barriers. These considerations are not ancillary, but central to a rights-based and humane immigration system.

III. Embedding User Experience into Natural Justice

Access to justice is not merely a matter of adjudicative outcomes. It must encompass how people interact with the system: whether they understand it, whether they can navigate it, and whether the information and tools they receive allow meaningful participation. In immigration law, where decisions affect status, safety, family unity, and livelihood, these dimensions of user experience are fundamental. When applicants are confused, misled, or disempowered by the system, fairness is undermined—even if the outcome is legally justifiable.

The IRPA does not expressly recognize user experience as a legal value. However, in a technologically advanced society, “user friendly” is tantamount to “procedurally fair”. Clarity and accessibility of the immigration system are essential to achieving the rule of law, and the absence of these design principles will have a grave impact on outcome. In this way, form and substance are fundamentally intertwined. A modern legislative framework must center the people it governs. This includes using plain language in forms and correspondence, removing redundancies, ensuring real-time access to information, leveraging technology to improve communication, and holding decision-makers accountable to service standards that are transparent and enforceable. For example, IRCC should move away from “digital stampede” models, such as the one used most recently for the Caregiver program¹⁴, which prevent access to those in the wrong time zone, with poor access or who face accessibility limitations.¹⁵

3.1 Systemic Barriers to Fairness

The complexity of immigration processes can give rise to procedural unfairness, especially for unrepresented applicants or those unfamiliar with Canadian legal concepts. Small mistakes—such as checking the wrong box or misunderstanding a form field—can have outsized consequences, including inadmissibility or application refusal. For example, misrepresentations under s. 40 are sometimes triggered by omissions or errors rooted not in deceit, but in ambiguous forms or confusing instructions.¹⁶ In these cases, applicants may be penalized for systemic design flaws rather than individual misconduct.

Communication from IRCC is often inconsistent or opaque. Applicants may receive template notices with little explanation of what is required to remedy an issue. Notices may be issued in inaccessible formats or contain language that is overly technical, and access to information or judicial review applications are often required to obtain full reasons for a decision, which creates downstream impacts on other institutions and partner agencies. Lack of clarity also predicates a strong reliance on legal advice and expertise, which has a compromising impact on impecunious clients who are often the most vulnerable. Without clear, responsive communication, applicants are left to guess what is expected of them—and risk losing status or fair process opportunities they are legally entitled to.

Technological tools can help, but only if they are implemented with the user in mind. Current platforms often lack transparency, interactivity, or real-time updates. Applicants may not know what stage their file is in, what documents are pending, what documents were submitted by their representative, or why a delay has occurred. These gaps lead to frustration, increased inquiries, exploitation and perceptions of arbitrariness.

3.2 Making Plain Language and Access Standard Practice

The CBA Section recommends a legislative and operational shift that embeds user experience as an element of natural justice. First, all application forms and correspondence should be reviewed and revised using plain language principles, with cross-cultural and multilingual accessibility in mind. Legal clarity is not the same as legal precision. Overly technical or passive language increases the risk of misunderstanding and prevents meaningful participation in one’s own case.¹⁷

Second, user-facing systems should incorporate interactive features that enable real-time communication and support. Tools such as guided online applications, virtual assistants, and secure messaging portals can help clarify expectations and reduce the risk of procedural missteps. In-person services must also remain available for those who are digitally excluded or who require accommodation.

Third, applicants should have access to their own file data, including —updated in real time and presented in an intelligible format. This would reduce reliance on ATIP requests and judicial reviews, minimizing guesswork and allowing for earlier intervention when problems arise. Where AI or ADM is used, individuals should be told when and how these tools are involved in their case, in accordance with international best practices.¹⁸

Finally, we recommend the creation of a centralized, publicly accessible repository of current program policies, eligibility criteria, and procedural guidance. At present, key requirements are dispersed across web pages, email communications, and informal channels, often creating confusion or contradictory information. There are also many elements of operational policy that comprise “secret law” since program expectations are not clearly published. All of these factors undermine coherence and transparency. Making program requirements easy to find is essential for fairness and for enabling applicants to understand and meet the case to be made.

3.3 Strengthening Service Guarantees

Administrative fairness also requires that the system meet reasonable expectations of timeliness and responsiveness. The CBA Section supports the application of the Service Fees Act to immigration programs and recommends that the IRPA modernization include enforceable service standards.¹⁹ Performance metrics should be published regularly—for all application types—and accompanied by explanations when targets are not met. The public has a right to understand whether immigration services are functioning efficiently—and to hold institutions accountable when they are not.

3.4 Strengthening Procedural Fairness and Responsive Processing in Canada's Immigration System

Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle of Canadian administrative law and a cornerstone of the rule of law under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Under the current immigration framework, however, applicants whose submissions are incomplete or contain minor omissions often face immediate refusal without a reasonable opportunity to correct errors. This practice risks undermining access to justice, particularly for vulnerable applicants who may face language barriers, limited resources, or complex procedural requirements. Minor technical deficiencies should not operate as a disproportionate barrier to immigration outcomes, especially where the substantive merits of an application are strong and clearly established.

A formalized procedural fairness and reconsideration framework would align immigration decision-making with the IRPA’s core objectives, by ensuring that applicants are treated with dignity, provided with meaningful notice of deficiencies, and given a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are finalized. Fairness must not be sacrificed for expediency; rather, a modern immigration system must embrace procedural safeguards that uphold both the rights of individuals and the integrity of Canadian institutions. This approach would also support administrative efficiency by reducing redundant reapplications and unnecessary litigation, while bolstering public confidence that immigration processes are transparent, reasonable, and just.

Also, the current immigration system lacks a consistent and transparent framework for addressing urgent processing requests or application withdrawals across different streams. As a result, applicants facing time-sensitive humanitarian, family reunification, employment, or legal needs lack a clear channel to make their requests, and often encounter confusion, inconsistent decision-making, and procedural delays that undermine the integrity and responsiveness of the system. Similarly, individuals who need to withdraw applications due to significant changes in circumstances, or to provide new documents to inform the department of a change in their circumstances, need clear and transparent procedures to follow. Without a standardized, accessible process, urgent situations may escalate unnecessarily, leading to avoidable harm for applicants and inefficiencies for decision-makers. Establishing a clear mechanism for urgent processing, withdrawal requests and filing of additional documents would promote procedural fairness, ensure that genuine urgency is assessed consistently and transparently, and enable immigration officers to prioritize resources more effectively. It would also bolster public trust in the system’s capacity to respond to real-world challenges with agility and humanity.

3.5 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
5.	Recognize User Experience as a Core Legal Value	Explicitly incorporate user experience and accessibility into the legislative objectives of the IRPA, reflecting their centrality to fairness and the rule of law. Treat clarity, usability, and meaningful participation as essential components of natural justice.
6.	Modernize Forms and Communications Using Plain Language	Mandate a comprehensive review and revision of all immigration forms, notices, and correspondence using plain language principles. Design communications to be cross-culturally appropriate, multilingual, and easily understandable, particularly for unrepresented or vulnerable applicants. Avoid overly technical, legalistic, or multi-tiered questions and passive language that creates barriers to understanding. This will mitigate systemic fairness risks by requiring the review of processes that can result in disproportionate consequences for minor or honest errors, particularly under the IRPA’s s.40 misrepresentation provisions. It is essential to give applicants with clear guidance and opportunities to correct omissions or errors without automatic penalty to conserve resources, unnecessary enforcement and the fair application of the IRPA.
7.	Improve Real-Time Communication and File Transparency	Develop and expand interactive, user-centered digital platforms that offer: Full reasons for decisions Real-time status updates on application progress Notifications about missing documents or steps Secure two-way messaging with IRCC Grant applicants access to real-time file data in an intelligible format to reduce ATIP requests and resorting to the Federal Court and/or the IRB and increase system responsiveness.
8.	Applicant-Centric Technology	Alongside our recommendations below on the deployment of AI and ADM, implement guided application tools, virtual assistants, and live chat options to clarify application requirements. Maintain in-person support options for individuals without digital access or requiring accommodation. Clearly disclose when AI or automation is used in decision-making and provide explanations and recourse mechanisms, in line with international best practices.
9.	Eliminate the “Digital Stampede” Intake Models to Ensure Fair Access	Replace first-come, first-served digital intake models with equitable processes, and ensure fair access regardless of time zone, internet connectivity, or accessibility limitations. Intake systems must be designed to promote fairness, inclusion, and meaningful opportunity to apply.
10.	Establish Enforceable Service Standards - Service Fees Act	Extend the Service Fees Act to immigration programs to formalize service expectations. Introduce legislated, enforceable service standards within the IRPA to ensure timely, predictable, and fair processing. Require IRCC to publish performance metrics regularly, with explanations when targets are not met, enhancing transparency and public accountability.
11.	Establish a Formalized Procedural Fairness and Reconsideration Framework for Incomplete or Deficient Applications	Amend the IRPA and its regulations to require immigration officers to issue a formal notice of deficiency for incomplete or minor omissions, giving applicants a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency before a final refusal is issued. Standardize the reconsideration process with clear timelines, transparent criteria for accepting supplementary information, and a written reasons if a correction is deemed insufficient. This framework would promote fairness, consistency, and administrative efficiency while reducing unnecessary reapplications and delays in processing.
12.	Create a Standardized Urgent Processing, Withdrawal, Update and Revocation Mechanisms Across Immigration Streams	Amend the IRPA and its regulations to develop formal policy instructions requiring immigration officers to implement a clear, accessible process for requesting urgent consideration of immigration files, including transparent criteria, standardized request procedures, and service standards for decision-making. Similarly, applicants must be given a straightforward and timely process to withdraw applications where circumstances have materially changed, or to submit further documents in support of a pending application where there has been a change of circumstances. While the IRCC webform is currently offered as the appropriate tool to use for this purpose, users often face long delays, and often applications are decided without consideration of the new material. Similarly, regulations should be explored for standardizing the revocation of visas and permits including transparent criteria, standardized request procedures, and service standards for decision-making.

Fairness in immigration is not limited to the final decision; it is experienced at every stage of engagement with the system. By embedding user experience into the design of immigration processes—and treating clarity, navigability, access, and communication as justice issues—Canada can uphold the values of the IRPA and restore trust in its administration. A modern immigration system must not only make the right decisions, but also make those decisions legible, accessible, and humane. At the same time, a well-designed system must integrate strong, fair, and transparent enforcement measures to deter and address misconduct effectively. Ensuring the system is accessible and just for legitimate applicants, while maintaining rigorous consequences for those who act in bad faith, is essential to preserving both public confidence and the integrity of Canada’s immigration framework.

IV. A New Framework for Technology and AI/ADM in Immigration Decision-Making

Technology is reshaping every facet of Canada’s immigration system. From eligibility triage to risk flagging and automated communications, AI and ADM are already integrated into immigration operations. These tools offer speed, consistency, and the potential to improve service delivery at scale. But they also raise urgent questions about fairness, explainability, and accountability—particularly in a high-stakes legal system where decisions can lead to exclusion, detention, or removal.

The CBA Section recognizes the promise of digital innovation in immigration and supports the responsible use of technology to improve access and efficiency. However, this promise must be matched by a clear and enforceable legal framework—one that ensures AI systems are transparent, auditable, and subject to appropriate oversight. Without such safeguards, technology risks amplifying existing inequities and embedding opaque decision-making into the core of the IRPA.²⁰

IRCC has made commendable progress in the use of AI and ADM and has contributed to the development of key directives, algorithmic impact assessments (AIA), privacy impact assessments (PIA) and other resource material to better foster an understanding of the technology in place and its impact on decision making. However, IRCC often sees AI and automation as operational tools, not necessarily legal instruments, treating them like IT infrastructure. For years, IRCC has been criticized for being opaque about how these tools operate - tools like Chinook were used before the public or legal community even knew they existed. Only after ATIP requests, legal challenges, and public pressure did IRCC begin releasing details. The roll-out sent a clear message that transparency was not being prioritized.²¹

IRCC sometimes defends the lack of consultation because these systems are internal tools that help officers. They do not make final decisions, so they do not require legal review. It has also been maintained that preserving program integrity demands minimal disclosure of operational detail. In practice, the line between “operational” and “decisional” is blurred by automated risk scores, pattern tracing, eligibility triaging, and refusal templates.²²

When new technology is adopted, it is imperative that it not fetter discretion of the Minister’s delegates, nor impede transparency, fairness and accountability, which are fundamental principles of administrative law. The question of whether AI tools adopted by the department have effectively struck this balance is something that must be subject to public and judicial scrutiny. However, the lack of clear parameters for data usage, and the absence of clear and independent oversight and monitoring mechanisms have hurt public confidence and created a deluge of access to information requests and litigation aimed at better understanding the decision-making process. This marks a dramatic shift away from openness and transparency toward a more restrictive and less forthcoming approach, raising concerns about accountability and democratic principles.

4.1 A Growing Role Without a Clear Legal Framework

IRCC has already deployed automated systems in a range of contexts, including processing visitor visas, study permits and certain permanent residence streams. These tools triage applications, assess risk, and make eligibility determinations based on pre-programmed logic, officer rules and predictive algorithms. While these uses have helped manage high volumes, they have also created disparities in processing outcomes, with some applicants receiving approvals within days while others face unexplained delays for months.²³

Despite these widespread uses, there is no dedicated legislative framework within the IRPA to govern the design, deployment, or review of AI systems. Nor are there statutory requirements to notify individuals when an automated tool is involved in their case. Applicants do not have the right to receive meaningful explanations for algorithmic outcomes or to request human review of automated decisions. This undermines procedural fairness and limits the ability of applicants to know, understand, or challenge decisions that affect their status.

The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Directive on Automated Decision-Making²⁴ offers high-level guidance across federal departments, including the use of AIAs. However, the Directive:

• Is non-binding under the IRPA, and lacks the force of law in immigration proceedings;
• Does not create rights for applicants or impose procedural guarantees, such as understandable transparency, human review or reason-giving; and
• Was designed for general government operations and does not fully account for the unique complexity, legal stakes, and humanitarian dimensions of immigration decision-making.

This reveals a critical governance gap, which renders IRCC’s system out of step with international best practices. While a general oversight structure exists through TBS and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), these bodies do not have the subject-matter expertise, mandate, or operational proximity to regulate immigration-specific AI effectively. IRCC is uniquely positioned to assume this role, provided that strong oversight mechanisms are put in place to ensure accountability in the area of immigration, citizenship and refugee law and delivery.

Because IRCC has expertise in the various immigration pathways, appropriate legal standards, and procedural fairness requirements, it is best placed to design and implement fit-for-purpose AI governance that embed safeguards directly into system design grounded in amendments to the IRPA. These tools must respond quickly to risks and adapt frameworks as programs evolve. Oversight must be tailored to the immigration context, since generic standards from central agencies cannot fully account for the life-altering outcomes inherent to immigration decisions (e.g., family separation, deportation, refugee protection).

The other benefit to housing regulatory oversight within IRCC is to ensure cohesion of immigration objectives with operational priorities. That said, IRCC must actively engage other key stakeholders, including the Federal Courts, the IRB, ESDC, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and organizations like the CBA to identify and address ongoing stakeholder-identified risks and concerns. This will ensure external accountability, preserve public trust and uphold legal rights. It will also ensure a human in the loop remains central to the decision-making.

4.2 Risks of Bias, Exclusion, and Unreviewability

Automated tools are not neutral. They are built on data inputs and programmed logic that reflect existing institutional assumptions and policy choices. If those assumptions are flawed or biased, the technology will replicate or amplify those biases at scale. Use of AI also creates risk of insulating broad swaths of discretionary power against public oversight and judicial scrutiny, even precluding effective Charter review, since biases perpetuated by machine learning will be inscrutable to those without access to the algorithm and the complete dataset. This is particularly dangerous in a system like immigration that is used by racialized applicants, individuals from conflict-affected regions, and others who may suffer severe and quasi-penal consequences that evoke Charter protections.

Those using our immigration system are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, specifically in the use of their personal data in development and use of AI systems. At present, there are no clear terms and limitations on scope of collection or use, and no clarity on privacy guarantees for those whose data is collected for migration to Canada. This is of particular concern where data may be used in other AI supported technologies. Additional layers of concern arise where information may be outsourced to third parties for technological innovation.

Two notable areas where Charter compliance is of concern arise from s. 15 and s. 7 of the Charter. Personal characteristics such as age, country of citizenship, and marital status – which attract equality protections under s. 15 of the Charter - have been used for decades in selecting would-be immigrants. However, appropriate use of these differentiators is subject to Charter scrutiny, which will become difficult as AI generated decisions proliferate, and increasingly rely on advanced data analytics and predictive models that do not form part of the tribunal record. How, in these cases, can the courts ensure s. 15 compliance?

Issues involving s.7 compliance in use of AI tools has been raised in the criminal law context, and must be considered also in the immigration context, where penal and quasi-penal consequences often arise – for example in application of the enforcement provisions of the IRPA, and even in the application of admissibility rules.²⁵ In the criminal context, concerns have been raised regarding the introduction of AI in the court room. For example, Michael Purcell (J.D., Assistant Crown Attorney) and Matthew Zaia (J.D. Candidate) considered in the following words the implications of using evidence produced by machine learning generated data in a trial where the defendant is then unable to confront the witness providing that information:²⁶

In Canada, these concerns implicate fundamental trial rights under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the right to confront a witness. Roth connects the inscrutability of machine processes to the “dignity of the accused and the perceived legitimacy of the legal process,” and ultimately proposes a legal framework to conceptualize and regulate machine evidence.²⁷

In another example of potential bias, the Auditor General has raised concern about processing inconsistencies in permanent residence pathways, noting that IRCC was unable to demonstrate that its use of automation was fair or free from bias.²⁸ These concerns are compounded by the opacity of AI systems, many of which are treated as proprietary or too complex to explain in plain language. This lack of explicability conflicts with the core tenets of administrative justice, where decisions must be intelligible, transparent, and open to review.

There are further and emerging issues with respect to when and if the Charter will apply to certain types of applications which are beyond the scope of this paper.²⁹ What we wish to note for present purposes is that Charter compliance is a going concern, and one that must be carefully considered in AI implementation.

The risks we have described above are not merely theoretical. In immigration contexts, decisions made by—or shaped by—automated systems can result in rejections, inadmissibility findings, or prolonged separation of families. Without safeguards, applicants are left vulnerable to errors they cannot detect and cannot correct. As noted elsewhere in this submission, the use of rigid, data-driven logic in inadmissibility assessments—particularly in the criminality provisions—demonstrates how systemic unfairness can emerge when discretion is automated without adequate constraint.

4.3 Principles for a Responsible AI Framework

The CBA Section recommends the introduction of a statutory framework within the IRPA to govern the use of AI and automated tools in immigration decision-making. At a minimum, this framework should include:

• Transparency and notice requirements, ensuring that applicants are informed when their case involves automation, and that they are given a clear explanation of how decisions were made. More detailed public information about AI systems adopted should also be made available, including PIAs, Public Monitoring dashboards, etc.
• Human-in-the-loop review, including the right to request human reconsideration where automation materially affects an outcome.
• Audits and monitoring, requiring regular evaluation of AI systems for accuracy, bias, and equity of outcomes, with publicly available results.
• Training and ethical standards, mandating that IRCC personnel receive training on the use, limitations, and oversight of automated tools, including guidance on preventing systemic discrimination.
• Stakeholder engagement, creating mechanisms for legal professionals from the private bar and the department of justice, members of the judiciary, community groups, and subject matter experts to participate in the design, implementation, and review of AI systems.³⁰

These principles align with emerging international standards, including the Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, which Canada helped shape. Incorporating these definitions and norms in the IRPA would ensure that Canada’s immigration system reflects its broader commitment to rights-based digital governance.³¹

We have developed a more complete list of recommendations that we would be happy to share at your request.

4.4 Redress and Review Rights

Applicants who are adversely affected by automated processes must have access to timely and effective redress. This includes the right to understand the basis of the decision, to correct factual errors, and to appeal or seek judicial review of flawed outcomes. A fair system cannot allow automation to become a shield against accountability.

Legislative reform must also address the evidentiary challenges of AI litigation, including access to code, data sources, and algorithmic logic. Without such transparency, applicants and counsel are effectively barred from making informed arguments, and courts are limited in their ability to assess legality and fairness.

4.5 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
13.	IRPA/IRPR Amendments for AI and ADM Use	Introduce dedicated provisions within the IRPA to regulate the use of AI and ADM in immigration processes, anchored in binding principles of transparency, notice, accountability, human-in-the-loop review, regular audits and monitoring, robust training and ethical standards, and meaningful stakeholder engagement. These provisions should establish mechanisms for legal professionals, community groups, and subject matter experts to participate in the design, implementation, and review of AI systems. Amend the IRPR to operationalize these principles, including mandatory disclosures, AIAs, PIAs and enforceable redress mechanisms.
14.	Establish an independent AI Oversight Unit	Establish an independent AI Oversight Unit within IRCC responsible for compliance, audits, and public reporting, with external review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Auditor General, and civil society including stakeholder representatives like the CBA and reporting to Parliament.
15.	Require Coordination with TBS	Require IRCC to coordinate with TBS (for system design standards) and OPC (for privacy oversight), while retaining primary responsibility for sector-specific regulation given the unique nature of immigration decision-making.
16.	Mandate Annual Public Reporting, Third-Party Audits and a Grievance Mechanism	Mandate annual public reporting, third-party audits, and a formal grievance mechanism accessible to applicants and advocates. Consider a parliamentary review committee to periodically assess the framework’s operation and fairness.
17.	Codify a Statutory Right for Applicants	Codify a statutory right for applicants to request human review, receive intelligible reasons for automated decisions, and access the underlying logic or criteria behind system outputs.

Technology can support fairness—but only if fairness is built into its design. A rights-based immigration system must subject AI to the same standards of accountability and review that apply to human decision-makers. The CBA Section supports the responsible and transparent integration of digital tools in immigration processes and encourages Parliament to embed clear safeguards in the IRPA. By doing so, Canada can lead in building an immigration system that is not only modern, but also just.

V. Family Reunification: Repairing Fragmented and Discriminatory Regimes

Family reunification has long been a cornerstone of Canada’s immigration policy, recognized in s.3(1)(d) of the IRPA as a core objective of the legislation. Yet the current structure of the IRPA is increasingly fragmented, inequitable, and out of step with the diverse realities of Canadian families. Narrow definitions, rigid exclusions, and inconsistent treatment of similar relationships result in outcomes that undermine fairness, erode confidence in the system, and conflict with Canada’s stated commitments to equality and inclusion.

The CBA Section recommends a comprehensive review and reform of the legislative and regulatory framework governing family reunification. A modernized system must reflect the diversity of family forms, promote consistency in decision-making, and remove barriers that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. In particular, we endorse an approach that combines elements of the family and economic categories, as has been undertaken in other jurisdictions.

5.1 Eliminating Arbitrary Distinctions Between Inland and Overseas Spousal Sponsorship

The existing structure of the IRPA and IRPR defines different types of domestic partnerships in different ways: spouses, common-law partners, and conjugal partners. Currently, a person’s right of access to a work permit, permanent residence or a right of appeal may depend on the specific form of their domestic partnership with a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and on their country of residence. These distinctions lead to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated applicants, particularly those whose relationships are shaped by cultural, legal, or practical barriers beyond their control.

In respect of programming intended for those who sponsor their domestic partners, the CBA Section recommends consolidating the spousal categories under the IRPR³² to reduce unnecessary complexity, and to promote equal access to procedural protections. There is no justifiable basis for offering a right of appeal to one group of sponsors but not another, and alignment of these two programs would likely reduce re-application by refused in-Canada sponsors, particularly given the high level of early resolution in refused spousal applications before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).

Over time, the family sponsorship program has been modernized to mitigate disadvantages faced by individuals in same-sex or culturally constrained relationships who are unable to marry or cohabit for reasons beyond their control. Other sections of the legislative scheme have yet to be brought into alignment. For example, the current system allows a Canadian or permanent resident to sponsor certain conjugal partners who reside outside Canada where the two cannot marry due to some legal or practical barrier. However, an applicant for permanent resident cannot request concurrent processing for such a partner when they themselves apply for permanent residence, creating lengthy barriers to reunification for such couples. Even where conjugal partners are sponsored, they can be excluded as medically inadmissible to Canada due to the “excess demand” they might impose on Canadian health and social services, whereas common-law partners or spouses cannot. Eliminating these variances is essential to achieving true inclusivity.³³

5.2 Punitive Exclusion of Undisclosed Family Members

Section 117(9)(d) of the IRPR renders a foreign national ineligible for sponsorship in the family class if that person was not declared and examined at the time of the sponsor’s original immigration application. Section 125(1)(d) extends a similar exclusion to the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class. The stated purpose of this provision is to prevent non-disclosure of dependents, and to protect integrity in administration of the Act.

Our concern with these provisions is that non-disclosure-disclosure of family members may occur due to misunderstanding – such as cases where the principal applicant is unaware that the child or grand-child exists. It may be caused by honest mistake, lack of cultural literacy about a foreign legal concept (e.g. common-law partnership), or because a tragic event occurred that warrants compassion (such as a rape or child abduction). Exclusions even occur without any wrongdoing, such as cases where the family member is fully disclosed but cannot be examined because they are presumed dead, missing in a conflict zone, where a child is temporarily estranged or denied access in a custody dispute, or where the child’s identity documents cannot be obtained because of restrictions imposed by the foreign jurisdiction (often due to patriarchal domestic policy). In these circumstances, the provisions operate in a manner inconsistent with the legislative objective of family reunification, and disproportionately impact women, children, and racialized applicants.

The provisions enable officer discretion to waive non-disclosure in exceptional circumstances. However, these rules must be clarified and reinvigorated. In practice, waivers are rarely granted. Rather, applicants for permanent residence are typically asked to concede a sponsorship bar where examination is impossible or risk refusal of their own application, and then must pursue lengthy and uncertain humanitarian applications if examination later becomes possible. Where those discretionary applications are subsequently refused, the impacts are often borne by children with no other parent to provide the care they require.

The CBA Section recommends the elimination of s.117(9)(d) and 125(1)(d), which are inconsistent with the legislative objective of family reunification and have led to outcomes that disproportionately impact women, children and racialized applicants. We endorse an approach that enables genuine discretion and procedural fairness in these cases.

5.3 Exclusionary Definitions of Family and Adoption

Current definitions of “adopted child” in s. 3(2) of the IRPR require that an adoption recognized for immigration purposes fully sever the legal relationship with the biological parent(s). This definition excludes many bona fide adoptions under cultural or religious practices such as kafalah, which is common in parts of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as adoption frameworks in parts of Asia and Latin America. The requirement to sever legal ties may also contradict the best interests of the child, particularly where ongoing connection to extended family remains important for emotional or cultural reasons.

The CBA Section recommends amending the definition of adoption to permit legal recognition of caregiving arrangements that do not formally terminate the biological parent-child relationship, provided they meet clear criteria for stability, duration, and best interests of the child. This would allow children in kafalah-like arrangements to be sponsored under the Family Class and would prevent exclusion based on legal formalities that fail to capture the reality of the caregiving relationship, leaving children in situations where they cannot be reunited with their only or de facto parent(s) in Canada. Additionally, the requirement for evidence that the child was not adopted for the purpose of immigration must be assessed in a culturally sensitive manner. The CBA Section supports clearer guidance for officers to avoid discretionary decisions based on assumptions about non-Western family practices.

5.4 Limits on Study Permit Eligibility

Another idiosyncrasy of the current legislation is that s.30(2) of the IRPA permits only “minor” children to study at the pre-school, elementary or secondary school level where they are accompanying a parent (except where the parent is a temporary resident who is not authorized to work or study). This use of the word “minor” rather than “dependent” in this provision can have the impact of causing a child to become ineligible to study mid-way through their final year of school, or to become ineligible to study if they move to a province where the age of majority is lower. It can also have a negative impact on a child whose dependency is prolonged due to an intellectual or medical condition. We recommend that the wording of s.30(2) be amended to make all “dependent children” eligible where the other conditions of this section are met.

5.5 Disproportionate Impact of Sponsor Residency Requirements

Under s. 130(2) of the IRPR, a person must reside in Canada to sponsor a family member, unless they are a Canadian citizen intending to return. This requirement disproportionately affects permanent residents who may be residing temporarily outside Canada to accompany their spouse abroad—particularly in situations where the spouse’s immigration application has been delayed or denied.

The CBA Section recommends amending s. 130(2) of the IRPR to allow permanent residents to sponsor a spouse or child even if temporarily outside Canada, where they can demonstrate an intention to return and a genuine family relationship. The current rule forces applicants into a precarious choice between maintaining immigration status and preserving family unity. The outcome is punitive and inconsistent with the objective of family reunification under s. 3(1)(d) of the IRPA.

5.6 Revisiting the “Bad Faith” Test in Family Sponsorship

Section 4 of the IRPR allows officers to refuse family sponsorship applications where they find that the relationship was entered into primarily for immigration purposes and is not genuine. The current test is disjunctive—officers may refuse where either condition is met, rather than both. This structure leads to overbroad refusals and undermines legitimate relationships that may have immigration as one of several motivations.

The CBA Section recommends that s. 4 be reinstated to its previous form, which permits refusal only where both elements of the conjunctive are met (i.e. where the relationship is non-genuine and was entered primarily for immigration purposes). This would better reflect the reality that immigration may be one of several legitimate reasons for a couple to marry, and may even be the catalyst when immigration issues arise unexpectedly. The current framing focuses on the applicant’s decision-making priorities, without demanding substantive insight into the genuineness of the relationship as a whole.

5.7 Protecting Survivors of Abuse in Sponsorship Contexts

IRCC has created numerous mechanisms to help victims and survivors of family violence, demonstrating its commitment to harm prevention and risk mitigation. These have included the creation of the expedited Family Violence Temporary Resident Permit, and the protocol for fast-tracking of Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications for victims of family violence. We ask that these two excellent programs be more formally institutionalized by including them in the IRPR, to offer some reassurance of future stability, as well as clear policy guidance and ongoing officer training (with stakeholder engagement) to ensure that these programs are implemented in a trauma-informed manner.

Further reform is required to address situations where an individual may need to remove a family member from an existing application due to domestic violence or coercion. In its current form, the IRPR offers no clear or accessible mechanism for doing so. The CBA Section recommends that a clear process be established to allow applicants to exclude a spouse or partner from their application in cases involving abuse, without requiring onerous proof or formal legal separation.

We also recommend repealing the IRPR provision that prevents approval of a sponsored spousal application where the sponsor has withdrawn support. Even with the Family Violence policy in place, this provision in its current form can be weaponized against victims of violence, unless it is tempered by a prohibition against refusal where the applicant can demonstrate partner violence. Applicants should not be penalized or rendered inadmissible without notice and procedural safeguards, particularly given critical safety considerations at play.

5.8 Towards Inclusive Family Reunification: Reintroducing Siblings and Broadening Parental Definitions in the Family Class

Siblings

The IRPA currently excludes permanent residents and Canadian citizens from directly sponsoring their siblings under the family class. However, this was not always the case. Prior to the early 1990s, siblings could be directly sponsored under the family class. The Immigration Act of 1985 and the 1978 Regulations allowed for a much broader definition of admissible family members under the family class, which included siblings and most other relatives.³⁴

This changed even though the family reunification objective under the IRPA did not. Section 117(1) of the IRPR defines members of the family class but it excludes the direct sponsorship of siblings unless they are orphaned, under the age of 18 and single.³⁵ This narrow scope fails to reflect diverse modern family structures and leaves many Canadians unable to reunite with siblings, even when they are otherwise admissible and self-sufficient. Many sponsors have sole or surviving siblings, particularly in post-conflict or displaced families. Excluding them from sponsorship undermines Canada’s commitment to H&C immigration policy. The value of family support in re-settlement efforts has been explicitly recognized by IRCC in recent offerings created in response to global humanitarian crises. In particular, the policy response to the crisis in Gaza³⁶, the Sudan³⁷, and augmenting migration pathways for those from Haiti, Colombia and Venezuela³⁸ granted special privileges and opportunities for those with permanent residents or citizens relatives (including siblings) in Canada.

Many countries—including Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (under specific conditions)—have broader or more flexible family reunification pathways that include adult siblings, making Canada comparatively restrictive.³⁹ Reuniting siblings can improve settlement success for both the sponsor and the newcomer. Sponsored siblings often arrive with pre-existing family and housing support, reducing reliance on public services. They are more likely to integrate quickly into the labour market, particularly when they arrive with language ability, education, or work experience. For many families, siblings offer essential childcare, eldercare, or business partnership support, enabling Canadian sponsors to work or contribute more fully to the economy.

We appreciate that 15 Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) points can now be obtained where Express Entry candidates have a family member in Canada. However, this low point attribution has little meaningful impact on eligibility, and does not adequately reflect the positive impact of a sibling on the settlement and integration process.

The exclusion of siblings disproportionately affects immigrant families from collectivist cultures where sibling relationships are often more central than other family ties recognized under the current law. Expanding sibling sponsorship would promote fairness across cultural and demographic groups.

Allowing siblings to be sponsored could support population growth and regional settlement goals, especially if incentives or streams are tied to low-growth communities. Many siblings of Canadian citizens and permanent residents are highly educated, multilingual, and internationally experienced—an untapped immigration cohort that can contribute to economic renewal, particularly in smaller cities or rural regions. If adopted, a sibling sponsorship program could include eligibility or integrity measures, such as:

• Requiring siblings to be economically independent;
• Age caps or priority processing for siblings under a certain age;
• Caps or annual quotas to manage demand;
• Special consideration for refugees, survivors of conflict, or Canadians without other family ties; and
• Economic factors that form part of the selection process.

Permitting the sponsorship of siblings under the Family Class would reflect a more inclusive, compassionate, and forward-looking immigration policy, consistent with the IRPA’s stated goals. It would promote family reunification, strengthen communities, enhance economic contributions, and affirm Canada’s leadership in values-based immigration.

Family reunification has always been one of Canada’s objectives for immigration, especially since it supports newcomer integration and long-term settlement. Our immigration program should not lose sight of the potential long-term contributions of certain applicants like sibling applicants by focusing solely on immediate (“economic”) contribution.

Parents and Grand Parents

As it relates to parent and grandparent immigration streams, there could be subcategories for permanent resident and temporary resident applicants, as well as categories to address urgent travel and/or humanitarian needs, or contributory parent options. Where one subcategory is prioritized temporarily, such as in response to the humanitarian crisis, other streams could be paused. This would represent an applicant-centric approach with the potential to deliver real change. The Reuniting Families Act embarked down this path by extending the period of stay to five years and revisiting the minimum necessary income (MNI) framework.

As to pathways, some could include medical coverage while others may require private medical coverage as in Bill C-242 that amended s.15.1 of the IRPA. In Australia, although the overall cap numbers are lower than those in Canada, there are several Contributory Parent options for parents with sufficient capital to contribute to their future health costs. These visa subclasses are designed to overcome the otherwise lengthy waiting period currently facing parents wishing to migrate to Australia through the non-contributory streams, subject to availability. Some examples include:

Parent Visa: A person outside Australia who is not old enough to be granted an Australian age pension, and who meets the "balance of family test" (simply put - at least half of their children live in Australia).

Aged Parent Visa: For the pension-eligible parent who meets the balance of family test as well as health and character requirements. This category has more restrictive caps – the parent must have an eligible child who is a settled Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.⁴⁰

There could also be a combination of the family and economic categories. For example, in New Zealand⁴¹, the Parent Category is a two-tier scheme where people can submit an expression of interest (EOI) under either tier. Tier-one EOIs take priority with higher income and financial requirements than tier two. Tier-two EOIs and applications are processed only after Tier one. If a parent is financially secure, such that they can maintain an annual income of NZ $60,000 plus NZ $1 million to invest for 4 years, and another NZ $500,000 to live on, the Parent Retirement Resident Visa can allow them to apply for permanent residency after four years. Such expanded categories must be balanced to ensure equitable access, inclusiveness and diversity.

5.9 Clarifying the Calculation of Family Size for MNI Requirements: Ensuring Fairness and Consistency in Family Reunification Sponsorships

The lack of regulatory clarity on how to calculate family size for MNI purposes creates unintended barriers to family reunification and contributes to inconsistent outcomes across similar applications. Updating the IRPR and corresponding operational bulletins to reflect daily or pro-rated income assessments would ensure that MNI determinations are more transparent, equitable, and aligned with real-life circumstances. With respect to MNI calculation, Officers rely upon s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) of the IRPR in determining if sponsors meet income requirements. Yet there is no guidance within s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) of the IRPR regarding how family size is to be calculated for the purposes of assessing the MNI in a given year. The provision only sets out how the MNI annual totals are to be calculated. This also requires that the sponsor meet requirements on the day the application is filed and until a final decision is made by the Respondent, suggesting this requirement is open to reassessment at any time.

Operational Bulletin 561 – New Regulations for sponsors of parents and grandparents (OB 561)⁴² speaks to MNI requirements. Like the legislation, OB 561 does not clarify how family size is calculated in a given year. Without such guidance in calculating family size, unfairness can arise. For example, a child born mid-way through a given year, or at the end of the year, is still calculated into family size for the entire year. The same logic would apply to one of the family members passing away at the beginning or part way through the year as opposed to the end. This should be amended in addition to a reduction of the MNI, by calculating MNI on a daily basis to accurately capture the date a family size may change.

5.10 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
18.	Legislative Renewal for Family Reunification in Canada	Undertake a comprehensive review and reform of the legislative and regulatory framework governing family reunification. A modernized system must reflect the diversity of Canadian families, promote consistent and equitable decision-making, and remove barriers that disproportionately impact vulnerable applicants, including women, children, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, and racialized communities.
19.	Modernizing Spousal Sponsorship to Reflect Canada’s Relationship Realities	Consolidate the spousal categories under the IRPR to reduce unnecessary complexity and promote equal access to sponsorship for all forms of genuine partnerships. Clarify the rules for conjugal partnerships is essential to ensure they do not disadvantage applicants who cannot marry or cohabit for cultural, legal, or practical reasons, including those in same-sex relationships. The system should also offer culturally sensitive alternatives to marriage or cohabitation, without creating a formal fiancé class, to recognize diverse relationship forms.
20.	Ending Lifetime Sponsorship Bans: Aligning Immigration Policy with Human Realities - Repealing sections 117(9)(d) and 125(1)(d) of the IRPR	Repeal ss. 117(9)(d) and 125(1)(d) of the IRPR, which impose lifetime bans on the sponsorship of family members who were not declared and examined in the sponsor’s original immigration application. These provisions are inconsistent with the objective of family reunification and lead to disproportionately harsh outcomes.
21.	Restoring Officer Discretion to Address Exceptional Non-Disclosure Circumstances	Restore meaningful officer discretion to waive non-disclosure in exceptional cases, which can be achieved through s.117(9)(11), such as where family members are presumed dead, missing, or inaccessible due to trauma or conflict. Clear operational guidance is needed to support the use of this discretion, which is currently available but almost never exercised.
22.	Legal Recognition Beyond Formal Adoption: Inclusive Immigration Policy for Children in Kafalah and Similar Arrangements IRPR, s. 3(2)	Amend the definition of adoption in s. 3(2) of IRPR to permit the legal recognition of stable caregiving arrangements that do not sever ties with biological parents, such as those established through kafalah and similar practices. These should be assessed based on the best interests of the child, duration, and stability, rather than rigid legal formalities. Assessment of whether an adoption was undertaken for immigration purposes should be approached with cultural sensitivity and grounded in clear guidance to avoid bias.
23.	Allow Permanent Residents to Sponsor Regardless of Geographic Location IRPR, s. 130(2)	Amend s. 130(2) of the IRPR to allow permanent residents to sponsor a spouse or child while temporarily residing abroad, provided they can demonstrate both a genuine relationship and an intention to return to Canada. This amendment would prevent permanent residents from being forced to choose between maintaining their immigration status and preserving family unity.
24.	Restore Conjunctive Test IRPR, s. 4	Amend s. 4 of the IRPR to restore a conjunctive test for refusals based on bad faith, requiring that the relationship be both non-genuine and entered into primarily for immigration purposes. This change would ensure that legitimate relationships are not rejected solely because immigration was a factor, and would reduce speculative decision-making by officers and unnecessary appeal inventory at the Immigration Appeal Division.
25.	Amend to Allow the Removal of an Abusive Spouse IRPR, s. 119	Amend the IRPR to establish a clear and accessible process for applicants to remove an abusive spouse or partner from their application without requiring a formal legal separation or undue evidentiary burden. This could entail revising s. 119 to grant officers discretion to approve applications in cases involving intimate partner violence or coercion, even where a sponsor has withdrawn support. The expedited Family Violence Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) and H&C Process could be formally institutionalized by including them in the IRPR. These changes are necessary to protect the safety and immigration security of survivors.
26.	Expand the Family Class to Include Siblings	Amend the IRPA and the IRPR to expand the definition of the Family Class to include adult siblings of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, recognizing their role in family unity and integration. Create a flexible sibling sponsorship stream with eligibility criteria and differentiated pathways, including for economic, humanitarian, and regional priorities.
27.	Modernize Parent and Grandparent Sponsorship	Modernize the Parent and Grandparent Program by introducing multiple streams—such as income-tested, capital-tested, and compassion-based options—and allow for more inclusive definitions of “parent” and “grandparent” that reflect diverse family structures. Consider tiered entry models and targeted quotas to balance economic contribution with equitable access and regional representation, and prevent the unfairness caused by a “digital stampede”.
28.	Introduce a Regulatory Definition of “Family Size” and Developing an MNI Calculator IRPR, s. 2	Introduce a regulatory definition of “family size” in the context of the IRPR s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) that a) specifies when a dependent is to be counted for income purposes (e.g., based on actual presence during the year); b) clarifies how births, deaths, or departures during the relevant period affect the family size total. Introduce a regulatory definition of “family size” in the context of IRPR s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) that: Specify when a dependent is to be counted for income purposes (e.g., based on actual presence during the year). Clarify how births, deaths, or departures during the relevant period affect the family size total. Amend the IRPR or program delivery instructions to allow for pro-rated MNI calculations based on the number of days a dependent is part of the sponsor’s family unit during the relevant taxation year. This approach would prevent penalizing sponsors for late-year births or early-year deaths. Allow for a more accurate and compassionate assessment of income sufficiency.
29.	Develop MNI Calculator	Develop a template tool or calculator to help sponsors estimate MNI obligations based on dynamic family size changes during the year. Allow for reconsideration or clarification requests where a MNI refusal is based on unexpected or inconsistently applied family size assumptions.

Family reunification is not only a policy objective—it is a reflection of Canada’s values. Yet the current legal framework creates exclusions and inconsistencies that undermine its promise. A modernized IRPA must remove barriers that punish vulnerable applicants, adapt to diverse family forms, and treat all families with equal dignity and fairness. The CBA Section encourages bold initiatives as described above including launching pilot programs to evaluate regional sibling sponsorship in rural or low-growth areas. Creating transparent selection grids for sibling and parent categories that balance economic, humanitarian, and demographic objectives; and merging certain elements of family and economic immigration classes where appropriate to encourage flexibility and innovation in stream design. The CBA Section urges Parliament to restore coherence and compassion while modernizing the law governing family sponsorship.

VI. Refugee Protection: Consolidation, Coherence, and Compassion

Canada has long been recognized as a leader in refugee protection, guided by its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its commitment to humanitarian principles. Yet the current refugee determination regime under the IRPA is fragmented, opaque, and increasingly difficult to navigate. Applicants face inconsistencies in procedures, standards, and outcomes depending on whether they apply inside or outside Canada, whether they are recognized under the Convention or through broader human rights grounds, and which decision-maker or pathway applies to their case. These structural inconsistencies erode fairness, increase inefficiencies, and undermine public trust in the refugee determination system.

The CBA Section calls for a coherent, unified approach to refugee protection—one that consolidates decision-making, applies protection principles consistently, and treats inland and overseas applicants with equal procedural dignity.

6.1 A Fragmented System of Protection

Refugee determination in Canada involves multiple actors: the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the IRB, officers making Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRA), H&C assessors, visa officers abroad, and the Federal Court. Each operates under distinct mandates, timelines, and standards. This multi-channel structure leads to duplication, inefficiency, and inconsistent application of protection grounds.

For example, while inland claimants have access to a full oral hearing before an independent tribunal, overseas resettlement applicants are often subject to paper-based assessments with no hearing, minimal procedural safeguards, and no appeal. Moreover, those applying abroad may be denied protection on the grounds that they have access to a “durable solution” elsewhere—even when the solution is speculative or insufficient to guarantee safety and dignity. Inland claimants, by contrast, are not denied protection based on the existence of a third-country solution. This double standard violates principles of fairness and consistency in refugee law.

The CBA Section supports a structural realignment that would centralize all refugee status determinations—whether inland or overseas—under a single decision-making authority within the IRB. A unified model would ensure that all applicants benefit from consistent standards of evidence, access to oral hearings where necessary, and the opportunity to respond to concerns before a decision is made. It would also strengthen Canada’s global leadership in refugee protection by aligning domestic processes with international best practices rooted in human rights and procedural justice.

6.2 Consistent Application of Extended Protection Grounds

In addition to the Convention refugees, the IRPA recognizes protection needs for persons in need of protection whose removal would subject them to a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or risk of torture. While these extended grounds are consistent with international human rights obligations, they are applied unevenly across different stages of the immigration process. PRRA assessments are conducted by immigration officers with limited independence, often under time constraints and often without the benefit of a hearing. Similar risks may be considered under H&C review but are often conducted without equivalent procedural safeguards or legal rigour.

The CBA Section recommends that all risk-based assessments involving the extended protection grounds be conducted within the IRB, using a transparent and procedurally robust framework. A single determination model would reduce confusion and overlap, eliminate inconsistent jurisprudence, and reinforce Canada’s international legal obligations. It would also ensure that individuals facing serious harm are assessed through a process that meets fundamental standards of fairness, independence, and accountability.

6.3 Enhancing Public Input and Policy Coherence

Refugee law in Canada has increasingly been shaped by operational bulletins, internal policies, and Ministerial Instructions that are not subject to public consultation or transparent justification. These instruments may change without notice and lack the legitimacy of legislative or regulatory reform. Applicants and counsel are often left to interpret opaque operational guidance without access to the reasoning or evidence behind it.

The CBA Section recommends that refugee-related policy instruments—particularly those that affect eligibility, exemptions, or procedural rights—be subject to public consultation and proactive disclosure. A system that exercises life-altering discretion must be governed by principles of transparency and accountability. To maintain legitimacy, these policies must be developed through open processes and reflect meaningful input from the legal community, service providers, and affected communities through regular engagement channels.

6.4 Improving Post-Hearing Processes

Even after a favourable decision at the RPD, successful refugee claimants face challenges in navigating post-hearing processes. Many are unaware they need to apply for permanent residence, or do not understand the consequences of applying for a replacement passport or of traveling to their country of citizenship in the future.

In some cases, avoidable lack of clarity on these issues has led to the initiation of cessation proceedings under s. 40.1, with devastating effects.

The CBA Section recommends that successful claimants be given clear, timely, and multilingual information at the conclusion of their hearing, and that refugee travel documents be automatically issued upon the conclusion of a successful hearing before the RPD. The current process is overly complex, creates a barrier to biometrics collection, and impedes timely filing of permanent residence applications. Delayed processing slows family reunification, leaving family members at risk of persecution and prolonging refugees’ isolation in Canada.

In addition, a warning mechanism should be implemented to advise claimants of the risks associated with obtaining travel documents from their country of reference. These changes would reduce preventable loss of status, protect vulnerable individuals, ease the burden on legal aid and adjudicative resources, and support a more compassionate, rights-based system.

6.5 Reforming Cessation and Vacation Provisions

Sections 40.1 and 108 of the IRPA allow for the cessation or vacation of refugee status, potentially resulting in inadmissibility and removal. These provisions are drafted in broad terms and often applied without proportionality. In particular, cessation may be triggered by a claimant’s actions post-decision—such as travelling to their home country or applying for documents—without regard to context or intent. In some cases, individuals face the loss of permanent residence and eventual removal despite having lived in Canada for years, with strong ties and no indication of bad faith or wrongdoing.

The consequences of cessation are profound—often resulting in the loss of protected status, permanent residence, and removal from Canada. These severe outcomes can disrupt families, sever community ties, and expose individuals to renewed risk. Accordingly, decisions to initiate cessation should be guided by clear, transparent, and consistently applied criteria.

To that end, IRCC should develop and publish detailed guidelines for officers assessing cessation--emphasizing procedural fairness. Cessation interviews should not be conducted in high-stress settings such as ports of entry, but rather with clear notice to the person concerned. Officers should also be trained to consider the context and intent behind the claimant’s actions, and to assess whether the conduct in question truly reflects a reavailment of protection or a change in circumstances warranting cessation. The principle of proportionality must be central to the decision such that individuals who briefly return to their country of origin for urgent, compassionate reasons -- e.g. to attend a funeral, should not be treated equally to someone who returned to live in their country of origin for an extended period. Cessation should not be used punitively or in a manner that undermines the integrity of Canada’s refugee protection system.

6.6 Ensuring Timely Family Reunification for Protected Persons

Protected Persons in Canada face prolonged and often harmful separation from their dependent family members abroad due to excessive delays in processing permanent residence applications. As of late 2023, the average wait time exceeded four years for dependents outside Canada. This delay affects thousands of individuals and significantly undermines the principles of family unity, procedural fairness, and access to justice. The consequences of separation are especially severe for spouses and children, who may remain in precarious or unsafe conditions abroad while awaiting reunification. These delays also impede the full integration of Protected Persons in Canada, who are unable to move forward with their lives while supporting, worrying and advocating for family members left behind.

The disproportionate impact of these delays on children raises serious concerns under Canada’s international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) that decision-makers must give substantial weight to the best interests of the child. The current four-year separation timeframe is incompatible with that requirement, and with the objectives of the IRPA to support family reunification and ensure application of the Act in a manner consistent with the Charter and international human rights instruments.

A practical, rights-consistent remedy is available through s. 24 of the IRPA, which permits the issuance of TRPs in exceptional cases. While currently used on an ad hoc basis, TRPs could be systematically applied to dependents of Protected Persons to facilitate timely family reunification while their permanent residence applications are pending. This approach would mitigate the harm of separation, reduce litigation burdens on the Federal Court, and promote consistency with Canada’s stated humanitarian values.

6.7 Strengthening Appeal Rights and Clarifying Humanitarian Risk

Strengthening Appeal Rights

The refugee protection determination system needs reform both in the direction of enhanced protection for genuine claimants, and in the direction of enhanced ineligibility/ exclusion. One key area for strengthening protection lies in reforming the refugee appeal system.

The current appeal system to the RAD suffers from overly strict evidence admission rules, and too often relies on paper-based adjudication even where credibility is a central issue in the decision. Credibility is inevitably an issue in refugee protection claims and yet there is great complexity in making nuanced and trauma-informed decisions which cannot be adequately addressed in a paper-based appeal.

Refugees, by the very nature of their plight and flight, do not come to Canada with abundant documentation. In their sworn testimony before the RPD, they do benefit from a presumption of credibility, however that is a rebuttable presumption that is often engaged without the claimant fully realizing that the truthfulness of their statements is not being taken at face value, and despite corroborating evidence regarding country conditions.

Honest claimants believe themselves and do not always anticipate that they will need to provide third party evidence to support testimony that they know to be true, especially when the presumption of truthfulness is rebutted due to minor inconsistencies on tangential issues, or due to legitimate gaps in their own memory, often exacerbated by trauma. These factors make particularly damaging the limit on new evidence, which will generally bar evidence that was reasonably available at the time of the claim, that arose before the rejection of the claim and that is produced only because the claimant did not anticipate the rebuttal of the presumption of credibility.⁴³

The CBA Section recommends that the prohibition on the admission of new evidence be repealed. Honest claimants, who do not doubt the truthfulness of their own testimony, cannot reasonably anticipate that their credibility will be doubted much less the issues that might be raised to impugn their credibility. In our view, removal of the new evidence rule will in fact simplify RAD proceedings, removing detailed debate both at the RAD and at Federal Court on admissibility of evidence, and allow instead for a more straight-forward review of the merits of the RPD decision.

Clarifying Humanitarian Risk

The IRPA recognizes distinct types of risk – that which warrants protection conferred on Convention refugees and protected persons⁴⁴ and that which is a legitimate component of H&C applications.⁴⁵ These distinctions are nuanced, often too subtle to be reasonably grasped by a lay applicant. Yet the IRPA limits officers’ discretion to grant H&C relief where an individual has previously made a refugee claim, resulting in severe immigration consequences for vulnerable applicants, without advancing any clear policy objective.⁴⁶ The rationale provided for implementing the one-year H&C bar is that it would forestall removal of failed refugee claimants. However, this rationale is questionable, as the filing of a permanent residence application does not stay or forestall removal.

There would be great benefit to clearly articulating the range of risks that can legitimately be considered as components of H&C applications, whether by regulation, policy, or guidelines. This would allow for greater transparency in the application process, and greater consistency in decision-making. This should begin with a general principle that all risks which fall outside the Convention refugee definition and the definition of the extended grounds of protection can legitimately be considered as components of H&C applications and then, without limiting the generality of that principle, include a detailed sequence of examples.

A Consistent and Transparent Approach in Responding to Humanitarian Crisis

In recent years, IRCC has implemented temporary and permanent policies in response to various humanitarian crises around the world – offering urgent pathways to facilitate travel to Canada or to enable foreign nationals in Canada to extend their stay on facilitated grounds⁴⁷. Lack of consistency in these policy initiatives, lack of transparency into the policy-making process, and lack of clear and predictable long-term outcomes for those temporarily resettled have all contributed to challenges in implementation and public approval. Structured policy reform driven and a consistent approach to humanitarian resettlement initiatives would streamline processing, maximize operational efficiency, and avoid the perception of systemic bias of one group over another. 

6.8 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
30.	Remove 12-Month Bar IRPA, s. 25(1.2)	Remove the bar that prohibits refugee claimants from applying for H&C relief for 12 months after their refugee claim is withdrawn or refused
31.	Centralize all Refugee Status Determinations	Centralize all refugee status determinations—both inland and overseas—under a single, independent authority within the IRB. This structural reform would eliminate duplication and fragmentation, ensure access to oral hearings where appropriate, and standardize evidentiary and procedural rules across all protection pathways. It would also address the double standard in assessing third-country “durable solutions” between inland and overseas applicants.
32.	Assign all Risk-based Assessments under Extended Protection Grounds	Assign all risk-based assessments under extended protection grounds—such as risks to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment—to the IRB. Consolidating these decisions under a transparent and procedurally robust model would improve consistency, reduce confusion caused by overlapping processes, and reinforce Canada’s international obligations under human rights law.
33.	Public Consultation and Proactive Disclosure of all Refugee-Related Policy Instruments	Subject all refugee-related policy instruments—especially those affecting eligibility, exemptions, and procedural rights—to public consultation and proactive disclosure. Policies that guide life-altering decisions must be transparent, legally accountable, and informed by regular engagement with legal professionals, service providers, and affected communities.
34.	Amendments to Cessation and Vacation Processes IRPA, ss. 40.1 and 108	Amend s. 40.1 and 108 of the IRPA to establish clear legislative and procedural fairness criteria, including a requirement that those subject to a cessation application be given an opportunity to respond before protected status is revoked. Officers should be required to consider the context and intent of the individual’s actions, and apply the principle of proportionality to avoid harsh outcomes for minor or compassionate return visits. Guidelines should direct officers to issue a notice to appear rather than conduct cessation interviews at ports of entry. Status should only be lost where there is clear evidence of fraud, bad faith, or a fundamental change in protection needs, consistent with Canada’s legal and humanitarian obligations.
35.	Issue TRPs to Dependents of Protected Persons to Facilitate Timely Reunification	Initially, issue Ministerial Instructions to authorize the routine issuance of TRPs under s. 24 of the IRPA to dependents of Protected Persons seeking permanent residence.
36.	Regulatory Amendment for TRPs to Dependents of Protected Persons to Facilitate Timely Reunification	To ensure greater consistency, transparency, and durability of the practice listed as recommendation 34 above, the authority for routine TRP issuance should be incorporated into the IRPR through a permanent regulatory amendment.
37.	Permit Work, Study, and Health Access for TRP Holders in this Context	Structure TRP issuance to permit accompanying dependents to reside in Canada with access to work or study permits and provincial health coverage while their permanent residence applications are processed. This ensures continuity of care and reduces vulnerability.
38.	Establish Transparent TRP Issuance Guidelines for Dependents of Protected Persons	Develop clear, publicly available guidelines for TRP issuance in these cases to ensure procedural transparency and alignment with international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Monitor processing times for dependents of Protected Persons and implement corrective measures to reduce excessive delays, minimize harm, and avoid unnecessary judicial review proceedings. This includes setting processing benchmarks and ensuring timely follow-up.
39.	Improve Access to Refugee Travel Documentation.	Automatically issue refugee travel documents following a successful Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision, or provide clear, timely, and multilingual advisories informing successful claimants of their obligations and the legal risks of obtaining documents from their country of origin. Reduce barriers to permanent residence for refugees by preventing unintentional cessation or inadmissibility due to lack of information.
40.	Broader Admissibility of Corroborating Evidence at the Refugee Appeal Division IRPA, s. 110(4)	Amend the IRPA at s.110(4) to allow broader admissibility of corroborating evidence at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), even if such evidence could have been reasonably available at the time of the original claim. Claimants relying on the presumption of credibility may not foresee the need for corroboration until after credibility is challenged at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The proposed legislative revision would remove or revise the clause preventing admission of evidence that “could reasonably have been expected to have been presented” at the initial hearing. The appeal system should function as a true error-correction mechanism, not a gatekeeping body punishing unanticipated gaps in record-building.
41.	Formalizing Non-Convention Risk in H&C Applications IRPA, s. 25	Add a regulation accompanied by detailed operational policy outlining the types of risks that fall outside the Convention refugee and extended protection definitions but may be legitimately considered under s.25 H&C grounds. Examples may include gender-based violence not rising to the Convention definition; Risks from state collapse, famine, or natural disasters; Particular vulnerability of stateless persons or LGBTQ+ persons in non-criminalized but still hostile environments; Threats arising from organized crime in regions where the state is unwilling or unable to offer protection.
42.	Integrating a Non-Protection Risk Framework into H&C Decision-Making, and Engendering Consistency in Humanitarian Policy Offerings	Incorporate a “non-protection risk framework” into H&C decision-making, ensuring that officers are reminded of their discretion to consider serious harm outside the protection regime. Similarly, ensure that public policy initiatives aimed at responding to humanitarian crises are developed in a transparent and consistent manner.

Refugee protection in Canada should be principled, consistent and fair, regardless of where or how an individual seeks it. The current patchwork system undermines the very integrity it seeks to uphold. The CBA Section urges Parliament to consolidate refugee decision-making, standardize protection criteria, and build a system that reflects Canada’s legal obligations and moral leadership on the world stage. At the same time, this work must align procedural fairness in appeals with the realities of refugee testimony. IRCC should clarify and expand the role of humanitarian discretion in addressing non-Convention risks, and ensure that implementation is undertaken in a consistent and principled manner, particularly in a global context where threats to human dignity are diverse and evolving.

VII. Admissibility and Inadmissibility: Narrowing and Clarifying Enforcement Provisions

An immigration program is defined as much by the applicants it welcomes as by those it excludes.⁴⁸ The inadmissibility regime in the IRPA is intended to safeguard the integrity and security of Canada’s immigration system. However, many of its provisions are overbroad, rigidly applied, and insufficiently responsive to context or individual circumstances. The result is a framework that imposes disproportionately harsh consequences on people with minor infractions, miscommunications, or associations, without affording meaningful opportunity to respond. In its current form, the regime risks conflating administrative management with enforcement and undermining basic principles of fairness and proportionality.

The CBA Section recommends targeted reforms across multiple grounds of inadmissibility to ensure that these provisions are clear, context-sensitive, and legally coherent. A more balanced approach will protect the public interest while reducing systemic unfairness and promoting transparency. Such reforms would preserve the legitimacy of the immigration system by ensuring that enforcement tools are used proportionately, predictably, and only where justified by evidence and context.

7.1 Toward a Rebalanced IRPA

The cumulative effect of these enforcement-first measures is a legislative framework increasingly shaped by control, restriction, and administrative convenience. This is at odds with the IRPA’s stated purpose and with the values of a modern immigration system. The CBA Section calls for a recalibration of the Act—one that restores balance between security and service, discretion and transparency, and enforcement and fairness.

Fraud prevention and program integrity remain essential, but they should not eclipse the overarching goals of inclusion, fairness, and accountability. A modernized IRPA should empower decision-makers to respond flexibly and fairly to the facts of each case, and ensure that rules are applied in ways that are transparent, humane, and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

7.2 Security and Terrorism (ss. 33–35)

Sections 33 to 35 set out inadmissibility on grounds of security, subversion, terrorism, and human rights violations. These provisions suffer from vague language and overreach. Section 33 allows for inadmissibility based on “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual is inadmissible under any other security-related ground. This standard is notably low and open to broad interpretation, especially where the underlying conduct is political or expressive in nature.

Section 34(1)(c) and (f) blur the line between national security threats and legitimate political expression. For example, individuals who have engaged in non-violent opposition to authoritarian regimes or who have been associated with liberation movements may be barred from Canada based on activities that are lawful and even protected in a Canadian context. Section 35 suffers from similar problems, casting a wide net that may include individuals who were only marginally involved in institutions later associated with human rights violations.

The CBA Section recommends revising these provisions to adopt clearer definitions of terrorism and national security that are consistent with international human rights law and Canadian constitutional principles. Inadmissibility on security grounds should require evidence of personal culpability, a clearly articulated risk, and a process that allows for disclosure and meaningful rebuttal. This is essential not only to protect individual rights, but to preserve the credibility and legitimacy of Canada’s inadmissibility regime.

7.3 Serious Criminality and Foreign Convictions (s. 36)

Section 36 renders individuals inadmissible on the basis of criminality, including offences committed outside Canada. However, the provision lacks adequate safeguards to ensure that foreign convictions are assessed fairly and proportionately. Individuals may be deemed inadmissible based on minor or regulatory offences that are criminalized more harshly in other jurisdictions, or based on convictions entered in legal systems that lack basic procedural fairness.

The CBA Section recommends that the IRPA include clearer criteria for assessing foreign convictions, including consideration of the rule of law in the convicting country, the availability of pardons, and the proportionality of the underlying conduct. Particular concern arises with respect to offences such as currency offences, like counterfeiting, which may be prosecuted with heightened severity in some jurisdictions without a corresponding risk to the Canadian public.

Section 36 should also explicitly allow for consideration of rehabilitation, the passage of time, and the personal circumstances of the applicant—including humanitarian factors, length of residence in Canada, and family ties. Permanent residents should not be removed automatically for offences that are dated, non-violent, or that have been pardoned abroad or addressed through non-custodial outcomes. Offences should be treated the same under the IRPA as they are in the criminal courts. Reclassifying less serious offences as indictable under Canadian law can produce outcomes that are disproportionate, inequitable, and misaligned with domestic sentencing principles.⁴⁹

7.4 Ensure Certainty of Opportunity for Appeal in Cases of Criminal Inadmissibility

The current regime under s. 64(2) of the IRPA automatically bars access to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) for permanent residents sentenced to six months or more of imprisonment and eliminates access to individualized review in a wide range of cases—many of which do not involve serious or repeated criminality. The bar applies rigidly and without regard to mitigating factors such as the offender’s length of time in Canada, if they entered Canada as a minor, rehabilitation, or the best interests of affected children. As a result, it can lead to permanent deportation for minor or isolated offences, sometimes committed by long-time residents with deep ties to Canada.

Since 2013, the definition of “serious criminality” for appeal purposes has captured a far broader range of conduct than originally intended. Many offences now triggering automatic removal would not typically be viewed by Canadians as warranting such severe immigration consequences. While courts have upheld the constitutionality of the six-month threshold, they have also interpreted it narrowly to avoid disproportionate effects. Other jurisdictions set higher thresholds—twelve months in the United Kingdom, one year for many offences in the United States—and often retain some form of discretionary or humanitarian review. Canada’s previous two-year threshold similarly reflected a practical distinction between less and more serious criminality.

Under s. 27(1) of the former Immigration Act, 1976,⁵⁰ permanent residents who had been domiciled in Canada for five years or more were protected from deportation, except in exceptional circumstances. “Domicile" meant more than physical presence — it required an intention to make Canada one’s permanent home. Those who had genuinely settled in Canada could not be deported for most immigration violations, such as misrepresentation or less serious criminality, unless serious public safety concerns were present. Deportation remained possible for serious criminality after five years but was barred for lesser infractions.

In reforming the IRPA, Parliament should consider reintroducing a more nuanced approach to long-term residents who face removal. This framework struck a balance between public safety and the recognition that long-settled individuals deserve greater procedural protection. Its elimination under the IRPA has resulted in a regime that often prioritizes enforcement over proportionality, without sufficient regard for an individual's integration into Canadian society.

A modernized IRPA should restore this balance—protecting public safety, while also acknowledging the contributions and deep roots of long-term residents. Clear statutory protections for well-established residents, coupled with strong enforcement mechanisms against serious threats, would enhance both the fairness and credibility of Canada’s immigration system. This would begin with more robust discretion to officers at the s. 44 stage.

Screening at the s. 44 stage should incorporate a formalized risk and proportionality assessment that evaluates the seriousness of the inadmissibility issue, the individual's ties to Canada, and any humanitarian or compassionate factors. CBSA officers should be required to complete a standardized triage checklist that categorizes cases by risk level (e.g., serious criminality, technical non-compliance, humanitarian considerations) and flags cases where alternative resolutions, such as monitoring may be appropriate.

There should be an enhanced tracking system for s. 44 reports, using case management tools to monitor outcomes and ensure oversight over enforcement decisions. It should include accountability measures requiring supervisory review of all s. 44 reports that involve long-term residents, family members of Canadians, or individuals who may raise Charter or international human rights considerations. Greater transparency at the triage stage would support better decision-making build greater public confidence that removal efforts are targeted, justified, and respectful of Canada's domestic and international obligations.

The CBA Section does not propose a specific threshold, such as on or two years. Instead, we call for the restoration of certainty of opportunity—ensuring that all permanent residents facing removal on grounds of serious criminality have the right to seek a discretionary, merit-based review before the IAD. We maintain that appeal rights should not be categorically barred by a sentence length alone. This position is consistent with our 2012 recommendation opposing the removal of IAD jurisdiction under Bill C-43 and supporting a case-by-case review that balances public safety with individual and humanitarian considerations.⁵¹

Reinstating access to appeal would allow independent decision-makers to assess whether deportation is a proportionate response considering all relevant factors. Such a process supports public confidence in the fairness of the immigration system, aligns with Canada's human rights obligations, and allows the immigration regime to distinguish truly serious threats from those who may have made a mistake but deserve the opportunity to stay.

7.5 Organized Crime (s. 37) and Association-Based Inadmissibility (s. 42)

Section 37 renders individuals inadmissible for involvement in organized criminality, including acts such as people smuggling and transnational crime. However, it does not distinguish between principal actors and those with minimal, indirect, or coerced roles, nor does it require evidence of actual criminal activity in Canada or intent to commit a crime.

Similarly, s. 42 allows for inadmissibility by association, rendering applicants inadmissible if they are a family member of someone inadmissible under certain grounds. This form of collective punishment undermines fundamental fairness and may penalize individuals who are innocent, law-abiding, and have no control over the conduct of their relatives.

The CBA Section recommends that s. 42 be narrowly construed or amended to apply only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear nexus between the family member’s conduct and the applicant’s own admissibility. The principle of individual responsibility must remain central to Canada’s immigration system.

7.6 Section 39 Financial Inadmissibility Should Account for All Sources of Financial Support

A foreign national inadmissible to Canada if: “They are unable or unwilling to support themselves or any dependants and have not made adequate arrangements for their care.”⁵² The legislative intent is to ensure that newcomers will not become a burden on Canadian social assistance programs. While this is a legitimate public policy objective, the provision must be applied in a way that reflects the full financial reality of applicants. All sources of financial support—not just employment income or personal assets—should be considered when determining admissibility under s.39.

The plain wording of s.39 refers to “adequate arrangements for care”, which is intentionally broad. Interpretation should include a wide range of credible financial supports, including help from family private sponsors, and even community organizations. Financial inadmissibility under s.39 is not simply a poverty test. It requires an assessment of whether the applicant is likely to rely on government-funded social assistance. The presence of alternative, reliable support should rebut inadmissibility. Canada’s immigration objectives, under s. 3 of the IRPA, include:

• Supporting the reunification of families
• Promoting the successful integration of permanent residents
• Respecting Canada’s international human rights commitments

Refusing entry based on a narrow view of finances—ignoring informal or family-based support—may undermine these objectives, especially in cases involving:

• Sponsored parents and grandparents
• Refugees and protected persons
• Spouses with dependents but strong family or community backing

Moreover, excluding someone because their “own” income is insufficient, while ignoring committed family support, may disproportionately affect women, the elderly, disabled individuals, and other vulnerable groups.

While exemptions may be available under s. 25 of the IRPA on H&C grounds, courts have affirmed that financial inadmissibility must be considered in light of personal circumstances, including:

• The best interests of children
• The presence of strong emotional, cultural, and logistical support
• The applicant’s potential to contribute, even in non-financial ways (e.g., caregiving)

A failure to consider all available financial support at the outset—particularly from willing and capable family members—undermines individualized assessment and leads to unnecessary reliance on appeals or H&C relief. It is also important to note that there is currently a policy authorizing immigration officers to grant a waiver to victims of family violence.⁵³  Victims are permitted to access government support as they leave an abusive relationship. There may be other scenarios requiring a similar waiver.

7.7 Misrepresentation (s. 40): Proportionality and Intent

The breadth and rigidity of the IRPA’s inadmissibility provisions are a further source of concern. The misrepresentation provisions at s. 40, in particular, are applied with little nuance. They do not distinguish between inadvertent errors and deliberate deceit, or between minor inaccuracies and serious breaches. Individuals may be found inadmissible for five years or more regardless of intent or whether the misrepresentation conferred any actual benefit.

The CBA Section recommends a proportional approach to inadmissibility for misrepresentation, grounded in context and consequence. A sliding scale model would permit decision-makers to distinguish between technical errors and fraudulent conduct and tailor consequences to the gravity of the conduct.  For example, when 700 international students were caught in fraud committed by one consultant resulted in many of them being found to have misrepresented were then deemed innocent by the ad hoc Genuine Students Task Force created by the Minister.⁵⁴ This underscores that the area of misrepresentation can be conflicting and unnecessarily harsh on those that really are innocent victims.⁵⁵  A sliding scale and proportionate application would uphold program integrity while respecting procedural fairness and avoiding overly broad punitive outcomes.⁵⁶

The cessation provisions at s. 40.1 raise similar fairness concerns. These provisions may render individuals inadmissible even after they have become permanent residents—often based on misunderstandings or administrative errors rather than misconduct. Such outcomes are inconsistent with the principle of legal security and run counter to the recognition of dual citizenship. The CBA Section recommends legislative amendments to limit the reach of these provisions and ensure that cessation does not lead to inadmissibility except where serious and substantiated concerns exist.

Under the current framework, s. 40 of the IRPA imposes a uniform five-year bar on foreign nationals and permanent residents found to have withheld or misstated material facts—regardless of intent, scope, or the significance of the omission. Even when the misrepresentation arises from misunderstanding, language barriers, or error, the penalty is automatic and severe.

The CBA Section recommends replacing this binary model with a sliding scale approach that considers the nature and intent of the misrepresentation, its materiality, and the applicant’s conduct. This would allow for more appropriate outcomes in cases involving innocent or technical errors. The current regime does not distinguish between deliberate fraud and unintentional mistakes—a failure that undermines trust in the system and places disproportionate burdens on vulnerable applicants.

7.8 Rethinking Section 41: Distinguishing Mistake from Misconduct

The current approach to non-compliance under s.41 of the IRPA lacks transparency and proportionality, leading to inconsistent outcomes and undermining trust in the immigration system. A more calibrated, transparent framework is needed to ensure fair treatment and uphold procedural justice. Section 41 treats a wide range of actions—ranging from minor errors to deliberate non-compliance—as grounds for inadmissibility without distinguishing intent, severity, or impact. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to reflect the spectrum of real-world circumstances.

Individuals may be penalized for technical errors, such as missing a deadline or misunderstanding instructions, with the same severity as those who deliberately evade requirements. Vulnerable individuals, including those with language barriers or limited access to legal support, are disproportionately impacted. When penalties are perceived as arbitrary or overly punitive, they reduce compliance incentives and public trust. A transparent, proportionate approach would encourage cooperation and enhance the system’s integrity. Other areas of law and public administration use sliding scale penalties to reflect context—tax, employment, and environmental law all allow regulators to respond flexibly to infractions.⁵⁷ The same principle should apply to the IRPA. There are a number of initiatives we would be delighted to explore jointly.

For example, a “Notice to Remedy” System for First-Time or Minor Non-Compliance: Before issuing a misrepresentation finding, officers could be required to issue a “Notice to Remedy” in cases where the issue appears to result from representative error. Applicants would be given a defined window to correct the information or provide clarification. Consider the creation of a Central Registry of Representative Misconduct: Establish a secure, privacy-compliant registry where IRCC and CBSA officers can track representatives with a history of misconduct-related client outcomes. This would help detect patterns of abuse and informs officer discretion in future cases. Equally important, thought could be given to regulations and policy guidance requiring officers to receive trauma-informed training and apply cultural competency principles in assessing allegations of inadmissibility, particularly in gender-based violence, coercion, or political persecution contexts. This should reduce misinterpretation of facts, ensures fair assessment of risk and responsibility, and minimizes re-traumatization.

7.9 Evidentiary Fairness and the Right to Rebut

Across the inadmissibility regime, procedural fairness is weakened by reliance upon low evidentiary thresholds, non-disclosure of critical information, and limited opportunities to challenge findings. In cases involving national security, applicants are often denied access to the full record or reasoning behind the decision. In others, they may be expected to refute allegations without knowing the source or basis of the information.

The CBA Section recommends codifying the right to receive and respond to the evidence on which inadmissibility is based, subject only to narrowly defined exceptions grounded in national security. The standard of “credible and reliable evidence” should be consistently applied, and discretion to refuse or revoke status should be exercised transparently, with written reasons and meaningful recourse.

7.10 Consistent Application of Section 44 Reports

Unreasonable delays between a criminal conviction, the issuance of a s. 44 report, and referral for admissibility hearings can lead to unfairness, legal uncertainty, and administrative inefficiency. Prolonged gaps between conviction and enforcement action undermine procedural fairness.

Individuals may be unaware they are under review, unable to prepare timely legal responses, or unjustly penalized years after having served their sentence or been rehabilitated.

The principle of legal certainty requires that consequences follow legal findings within a reasonable time. Extended delays blur the connection between a person’s conduct and immigration consequences, leading to perceptions of arbitrariness or retroactive punishment. Delays disproportionately affect permanent residents with strong ties to Canada who, years after a conviction, may face removal despite reintegration, employment, and family responsibilities.

This undermines integration goals and family unity. Delays also create administrative burdens, including difficulty locating individuals, gathering evidence, or verifying past events. This increases the likelihood of errors, contested referrals, or unsuccessful enforcement outcomes. Other legal frameworks (e.g., criminal sentencing, limitation periods in civil law) recognize the value of timely action. Similar principles should apply in immigration enforcement to promote predictability and accountability.

7.11 Sanctions, Fairness, and Due Process: Reforming Sanctions-Based Inadmissibility

Given the legislative intent to prevent immigration and access to individuals subject to sanctions—including those imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA)⁵⁸ under s. 4(1.1)(c) or (d), and any order or regulation made pursuant to s. 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)—it is important to note that these three grounds previously triggered inadmissibility under the IRPA as "violating human or international rights."⁵⁹ Subsection 35(1)(c), related to international sanctions, was enacted in 2002, while ss. 35(1)(d) and (e) have been in force since 2017.⁶⁰ The new legislative framework no longer links sanctions to violations of human or international rights, and instead expands inadmissibility under SEMA, particularly s. 4(1.1) ⁶¹, by adding:

(a) an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, has made a decision or a recommendation or adopted a resolution calling on its members to take economic measures against a foreign state;

(b) a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred that has resulted in or is likely to result in a serious international crisis;

These changes place the burden of economic sanctions and the consequences of actions of foreign states on individuals and family members. At the same time, eligibility for family members and dependents to apply for immigration status, appellate options (Immigration Division and Immigration Appeal Division access) and Ministerial relief have been removed.⁶² Affected foreign nationals and their family members are treated in law as human or international rights violators regardless of whether the sanction relates to personal wrongdoing or to broader economic, geographic, or measures by a foreign state.

Elevating the legal potency of “sanctions” without necessarily being “grounds of violating human or international rights” raises serious concerns about legal certainty and fairness. In this context, legislative clarity is essential to ensure transparency, predictability, and proportionality in the application of immigration consequences. First, the word sanction is not defined in the IRPA or the IRPR. Second, the scope and legal parameters of sanctions—especially given their potential to bar individuals and their families from entry, permanent residence, or appeal rights—must be clearly defined.⁶³

Unresolved interpretive questions include:

• Does a sanction need to emanate from the SEMA and the Sergei Magnitsky Law?
• Should all sanctions carry the same legal consequences under the IRPA, regardless of their scope, purpose, or subject matter (e.g. economic, geographic, entity-based, or state-based)?
• What are the legal implications for applicants—including foreign nationals, dependents, and Canadian citizens seeking to sponsor relatives—if a person is merely under investigation or in the process of being sanctioned, but not yet formally listed?

Without clear answers, sanctions-related inadmissibility risks becoming overly broad, inconsistent, and detached from procedural fairness and individualized assessment.

Subject matter experts on Canada’s sanctions regime—such as Dr. Andrea Charron from the University of Manitoba—have identified significant gaps requiring greater scrutiny. Her recommendations include:

• Sanctioning coherence and compliance via more study and oversight;
• More study, training and accreditation would be served by investing in a sanctions centre of excellence;
• Stricter parliamentary oversight, perhaps via a permanent subcommittee on sanctions, would help with foreign policy coherence;
• Canadian guidelines for sanctions implementation and best practices;
• That Canada should not rush to apply sanctions before maximizing the threat of sanctions and investigate “smart enforcement”;
• More transparent requirements as to how lists of names and entities are sanctioned;
• Public direction on how an individual can challenge the sanctions designation; and
• A sanctions database.⁶⁴

These concerns are mirrored in the immigration context, where the legal meaning and consequences of “sanctions” under the IRPA and related statutes remain poorly defined. For example, s. 10.1(4) of the Citizenship Act⁶⁵ —which governs revocation of citizenship—invokes sanctions-related grounds without specifying how these provisions intersect with s. 10.5(1), which does not reference sanctions. Similar ambiguity arises under recent amendments to the Emergencies Act, which now target Protected Persons deemed inadmissible under new, undefined sanctions grounds, raising the prospect of immediate removal.⁶⁶

Further, the amendment to s. 24.1(1) of the IRPR eliminates access to Ministerial relief under s. 42.1(1) of the IRPA for those found inadmissible under s. 35(1)(c). This effectively bars consideration of individual circumstances in many cases, including for family members. Amendments to s. 64(1) remove rights of appeal for foreign nationals found inadmissible on sanctions grounds, while restricting appeal rights of their permanent resident family members. These individuals also lose access to the Immigration Division for independent adjudication. At the same time, s. 58(1)(c) now allows for continued detention during sanctions investigations, and s. 55(3)(b) expands grounds of detention for suspected sanctions violations.⁶⁷

The Honourable Peter Harder and the Honourable Michael L. MacDonald have emphasized that individuals affected by these provisions retain access to refugee claims and PRRAs. However, this access does not mitigate the loss of broader procedural safeguards.⁶⁸ The availability of refugee or PRRA procedures does not restore the full suite of participatory rights that are integral to a fair immigration process.

Moreover, the legal and practical barriers to being delisted from sanctions are significant. The process varies depending on the underlying legislative framework (e.g., SEMA, Magnitsky Law), the nature of the sanctions, and the involvement of foreign states. Individuals and families may face insurmountable hurdles in understanding or navigating this process—particularly where sanctions are based on state behaviour unrelated to the applicant’s own conduct.

The risk of constitutional and procedural fairness challenges increases sharply when foreign nationals, permanent residents, or Canadian citizens are denied immigration status or stripped of status due to sanctions they had no role in.⁶⁹ The regulatory process to lift sanctions appears complex and diverse depending upon the sanctions and the foreign state.⁷⁰ As such, the IRPA and IRPR must retain sufficient safeguards to ensure that sanctions-based inadmissibility can be meaningfully contested on immigration-specific grounds.

These amendments to the IRPA and related statutes now extend inadmissibility to include not only sanctioned individuals, entities, and states, but also their family members. Notably, s. 42(a) and (b) of the IRPA renders all family members—including dependent children—inadmissible for permanent or temporary residency. This jeopardizes future immigration applications, disrupts current status in Canada, and even affects naturalized Canadian citizens seeking to sponsor relatives.

These changes could restrict access to refugee and humanitarian pathways abroad, with collateral effects on innocent parties.⁷¹ Given sanctions are often designed to pressure governments or institutions—not to penalize unrelated individuals seeking protection or reunification in Canada. So where Canada has recognized a person as a refugee, that recognition should automatically remove them from any associated sanctions lists.⁷²

Sanctions are a powerful tool of foreign policy and national security. However, their intersection with immigration law must be carefully constrained to prevent unintended human rights violations, ensure procedural fairness, and uphold Canada’s international obligations. The CBA Section’s recommendations strike a balance between security, transparency, and justice, ensuring that the IRPA and its related legislation reflect both modern global realities and Canada’s enduring commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

7.12 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
43.	Revisit Proportionality of Inadmissibility Framework	Canada’s inadmissibility framework should be proportionate, context-sensitive, and rooted in fairness. Current provisions are overly broad, inconsistently applied, and in some cases, incompatible with basic principles of justice and legal security. Reform is needed to align inadmissibility rules with the values of a modern, rights-respecting immigration system.
44.	Due Process in Inadmissibility Decisions: Ensuring Evidence Disclosure and Reviewability	Codify the right of applicants to receive and respond to the evidence underlying inadmissibility decisions, with limited exceptions for narrowly defined national security concerns. Apply a consistent standard of “credible and reliable evidence” across all cases. Require written reasons and ensure access to meaningful review mechanisms to promote transparency and accountability.
45.	Clarifying Security-Based Inadmissibility: From Association to Accountability IRPA, ss. 33–35	Revise ss. 33 to 35 to ensure clearer definitions and higher thresholds for inadmissibility on security and terrorism grounds. Inadmissibility should require evidence of personal involvement in serious conduct, not mere association or political expression. The standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” should be narrowed, and procedures must allow for meaningful disclosure and response. Definitions must align with international human rights law and Canadian constitutional standards. For example, define “inadmissibility on security grounds” to require active and personal involvement in serious acts. Exclude inadmissibility findings based solely on political expression, membership alone, or historical affiliation without intent. Raise the evidentiary threshold from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “clear and convincing evidence” in cases involving prolonged bans or removals. Align definitions and procedures with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
46.	Restore Procedural Safeguards and Relief Mechanisms IRPA, ss. 35(1), 42.1, 55 and 58	Reinstate the right to apply for Ministerial relief under the IRPA s.42.1 for individuals found inadmissible under s.35(1)(c). Restore access to the Immigration Division and Immigration Appeal Division for foreign nationals and their family members subject to sanctions-based inadmissibility. Introduce judicial or quasi-judicial review options for individuals impacted by sanctions-based inadmissibility or detention under sections 55 and 58. Ensure detention grounds based on sanctions (under the IRPA ss.55(3)(b) and 58(1)(c)) are used only in clearly defined, high-risk circumstances.
47.	Revisit Criteria for Assessing Foreign Convictions IRPA, s. 36	Introduce clearer criteria for assessing foreign convictions, including an evaluation of the legal system where the conviction occurred, the availability of pardons, and the proportionality of the conduct. If an offence proceeded summarily by Canadian standards, it should not be deemed indictable. Consideration should be given to rehabilitation, humanitarian factors, length of time in Canada, and family ties. Permanent residents should not face automatic removal or subject to more serious removal proceedings for dated or minor convictions, especially when the offence would not carry the same weight under Canadian law.
48.	Proportionality and Individualization in the Application IRPA, ss. 37 and 42	Amend s. 37 to differentiate between core actors and individuals with marginal or coerced involvement in organized crime. Require evidence of intent or meaningful participation. Limit s. 42 (guilt by association) to exceptional cases where a clear connection exists between the applicant’s actions and the inadmissibility of their relative. Innocent family members should not be penalized for conduct beyond their control.
49.	Toward a Broader, Fairer Interpretation IRPA, s. 39	A reasonable and lawful interpretation of s. 39 must include money from all sources, not only earned income or liquid assets. This includes: Spousal support or shared household income Private sponsorship commitments (in refugee or family reunification cases) Financial help from extended family or community networks Support in kind (e.g., housing, food, caregiving) This approach ensures that inadmissibility is not imposed unfairly on those who, while not independently wealthy, have reliable support structures in place. This change would require an update to internal guidelines and officer training to ensure that all forms of support—including non-traditional or family-based resources—are meaningfully considered in financial inadmissibility determinations under s. 39. This promotes a fairer and evidence-based approach to immigration assessment and appeals.
50.	Adopt a Proportionate and Transparent Framework for Addressing Misrepresentation	Reform s. 40 of the IRPA to establish a fair and graduated approach to findings of misrepresentation. The current binary model—which applies the same penalty regardless of intent, impact, or context—should be replaced with a sliding scale framework that distinguishes between technical errors, negligence, and deliberate fraud. Tailored consequences should be available, ranging from corrective action to inadmissibility findings, with the most serious penalties reserved for clear misconduct. Officers should be required to classify the type of non-compliance, provide written reasons, and consider statutory or regulatory factors such as intent, materiality, vulnerability, past compliance, and efforts to correct the issue. For first-time or minor infractions, a “notice to remedy” mechanism should be implemented to encourage compliance without immediate penalty. Section 40.1 should also be amended to ensure that cessation does not result in inadmissibility unless there is clear evidence of bad faith. IRCC and CBSA should publish guidance and anonymized decision summaries to enhance transparency, consistency, and public trust in the integrity of the immigration system.
51.	Eliminate the Automatic Six-Month Sentence Bar IRPA,s. 64(2)	Remove the rigid appeal bar based solely on a six-month sentence to allow for individualized assessments that consider mitigating factors.
52.	Introduce a Formalized Risk and Proportionality Assessment at the s. 44 Stage	Require CBSA officers to evaluate the seriousness of the inadmissibility, the individual's ties to Canada, rehabilitation efforts, and humanitarian considerations when initiating enforcement proceedings. Categorize cases based on risk level (e.g., serious criminality, technical violations, humanitarian factors) to guide appropriate enforcement or alternative measures.
53.	Develop a Centralized Tracking and Monitoring System for s. 44 Reports	Create a case management system to track decisions and outcomes, ensuring transparency, consistency, and accountability in removal actions. Require supervisory oversight for all s. 44 reports involving long-term residents, individuals with Canadian citizen family members, or cases raising Charter or international human rights concerns.
54.	Introducing Fixed Referral Periods and Delay Assessment Mechanisms	Introduce a fixed period (e.g., 24 months) within which CBSA must initiate a s. 44 report following a criminal conviction, barring exceptional circumstances. After this period, removal proceedings would require justification and Ministerial authorization. Amend the IRPR to require that all enforcement actions under s.44 demonstrate timeliness, with decision-makers required to assess delay and its justification before referral.
55.	Support Public Confidence Through Transparent, Case-by-Case Decision-Making	Reinforce a system that demonstrates proportionality and fairness, aligning with Canada's human rights obligations and maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. Ensure that truly serious offenders are removed swiftly, and restore a vital mechanism for achieving just, proportionate results in immigration decisions. It is a change that would reinforce public safety while reasserting Canada’s commitment to fairness and rehabilitation – values that define the country’s legal tradition as much as the need to protect the public does.
56.	Define “Sanctions” in the IRPA and IRPR IRPA, s. 2, and IRPR. s. 2	Define “Sanctions” in the IRPA and IRPR and amend the IRPA and IRPR to include a clear legal definition of “sanctions”, specifying: Which legislative instruments are recognized (e.g., SEMA, Magnitsky Act); Whether sanctions must target individuals or entities directly; How sanctions interact with immigration status for both primary applicants and their family Clarify whether inadmissibility should apply: Only where the sanctioned party is personally involved in conduct violating human or international rights; or also in cases of purely economic/geopolitical sanctions with no demonstrated personal wrongdoing. Provide legal guidance on the treatment of pending sanctions or investigations in immigration decision-making and codify thresholds or tests for assessing individual culpability distinct from state-based actions.
57.	Address Unintended Consequences for Dependents, Sponsors and Refugees IRPA, ss.42(a) and 42(b)	Amend the IRPA ss.42(a) and 42(b) to limit the blanket inadmissibility of dependents and family members in cases of sanctions. Introduce exemptions or discretion where family members are not directly complicit in the conduct leading to the sanctions. Provide clear guidance and procedural protections for naturalized citizens and permanent residents seeking to sponsor family members who may be indirectly affected. Require that IRCC publish guidelines on which sanctions lead to inadmissibility and under what conditions. Enact a legislative amendment providing that Recognition as a refugee by Canada automatically results in delisting from Canadian sanctions lists for immigration purposes. This ensures immediate access to resettlement, permanent residency, and integration services without further barriers. Confirm and protect access to refugee claims and PRRA for all persons affected by sanctions but not implicated in personal wrongdoing.
58.	Harmonization Regarding Sanctions Across Related Legislation	Ensure Legislative Harmony Across Acts: Clarify the application of “sanctions” under s.10.1(4) of the Citizenship Act, particularly in relation to revocation of citizenship. Align Citizenship Act s.10.5(1) and s.10.1(4) to ensure internal coherence regarding which grounds can justify revocation. Provide explicit definitions or cross-references in the Emergencies Act to ensure that removal provisions based on sanctions do not conflict with Charter protections or refugee rights.
59.	Sanction Remedial Process	Implement an independent administrative process for individuals to challenge their sanctions designation, consistent with Recommendation 8 of the 2017 Standing Committee report.

The inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA have evolved into a system that too often prioritizes exclusion over fairness, and rigidity over discretion. While protecting the public is essential, it must not come at the cost of proportionality, procedural justice, or the rights of individuals. A principled framework must recognize the complexity of individual circumstances and promote decisions that are transparent, reasoned, and rights-respecting. The CBA Section urges Parliament to revise these provisions to reflect Canada’s legal obligations, constitutional values, and commitment to fair, humane, and principled immigration enforcement that equally supports the integrity and security of our immigration system.

VIII. Building a Fair and Future-Ready Immigration System

An effective immigration system depends not only on sound laws and policies, but on the capacity to administer them fairly, efficiently, and consistently. Across all streams—from family reunification to refugee protection and economic immigration—Canada’s immigration system is facing deepening operational challenges. Long processing times, inconsistent decisions, poor communication, and opaque procedures have eroded public confidence and undermined trust in the system.

The CBA Section recognizes that these problems are not new, nor are they unique to Canada. But they are intensifying in the face of growing volumes, technological complexity, a dynamic economic environment, and evolving applicant needs. Legislative reform must therefore go hand-in-hand with operational transformation—one that emphasizes systemic improvements in training, transparency, service excellence, and accountability. Building a fair and future-ready immigration system necessarily includes more nuanced tracking, user feasibility and fraud prevention and tracking.

For example, a centralized, secure, and user-friendly digital platform for real-time status updates on all immigration applications, similar to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) online portal. Reduces applicant anxiety, minimizes repetitive status inquiries, and supports proactive case management. This could effectively lower the burden on the Call Centre and any other public resources. At the same time, IRCC should explore expanding its Foreign Verification and Enforcement Network. This would include increasing funding and authority for IRCC’s overseas officers and anti-fraud units to strengthen partnerships with local governments in identifying, reporting, and dismantling illegal operations. It would also be helpful to mandate that Canadian schools, employers, and immigration program partners (e.g., designated learning institutions, Start-Up Visa incubators) publicly disclose any overseas agents they work with in pursing Canadian immigration status. Similarly, maintaining and regularly publishing a verified list of unlicensed or illegal overseas agencies reported to have engaged in fraudulent or abusive conduct would help applicants avoid exploitation.

8.1 Persistent Backlogs and Erosion of Trust

Backlogs and delays continue to affect nearly every immigration stream. Whether through legacy inventories, temporary public policy surges, or staffing gaps, applicants often face months or years of waiting with little information about the status of their case or the expected timeline. These delays are not merely inconvenient—they can result in lost employment, family separation, or restricted access basic services.

Automated tools, while designed to increase efficiency, have also created new inequities. Applications are often triaged without clear criteria, and some appear to benefit from faster processing without explanation. The Auditor General has noted that IRCC lacks the performance monitoring and audit mechanisms needed to assess whether automated systems are achieving fair, consistent, and equitable results.⁷³

8.2 Permanent Resident Travel Documents and Overseas Delays

Access to justice issues are particularly acute for permanent residents abroad who must apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document (PRTD) in order to return to Canada. Processing delays for PRTDs can leave individuals stranded, separated from their families, at risk of losing employment and unable to maintain compliance with their residency requirements for reasons beyond their control. The absence of clear timelines, status updates, or appeal mechanisms creates uncertainty and hardship, particularly for those without legal representation.

The CBA Section recommends establishing clear service standards for PRTD processing, including expedited pathways in urgent or humanitarian cases. Communication with applicants must be improved, and decisions should include meaningful reasons and clear instructions for next steps.

8.3 Training and Professionalization

To address the inconsistency of decision-making, the CBA Section supports the creation of a system-wide training framework, modeled on best practices, such as Australia’s College of Immigration Officers.⁷⁴ This approach would promote standardized decision-making, ensure that new officers are well-equipped to assess complex cases, and create a culture of continuous learning tied to legislative principles and service values.

Training should include modules on plain language communication, trauma-informed interviewing, cultural competence, and procedural fairness. Officers should also be trained on how to assess credibility, risk, and discretion in a consistent and principled manner.

8.4 Service Standards, Audits, and Stakeholder Engagement

The CBA Section recommends that IRPA modernization include enforceable service standards aligned with the Service Fees Act,⁷⁵ alongside a requirement that IRCC commit to regular public reporting on processing performance. These reports should include data disaggregated by stream, region, and decision point, clearly identify areas of delay, and outline corrective measures.

Performance audits should be conducted on a rolling basis to evaluate whether processing objectives are being met and to determine whether disparities exist between similarly situated applicants. Where ADM is used, audit mechanisms must be built into system design, with independent oversight and stakeholder access.

Meaningful engagement with legal professionals and civil society should be a routine part of operational policy development. Officers and decision-makers benefit from on-the-ground feedback, and applicants benefit from systems that reflect real-world challenges.

8.5 Smarter Data for Better Decisions

The CBA Section also recommends improved use of data analytics to support decision-making and service planning. Such use must be accompanied by safeguards to protect privacy, ensure data quality, and avoid reinforcing systemic bias. Data collection and analysis should be transparent, subject to periodic review, and guided by principles of equity and accountability.

Analytics should be used to assess fraud and flag anomalies, and to identify bottlenecks, monitor regional disparities, and track how different populations experience the immigration process. In short, smarter data must be used to build a smarter—and fairer—system.

8.6 Modernizing Canada’s Economic Selection System: An Integrated Approach for Temporary and Permanent Residents

Economic immigration has long been a cornerstone of Canadian immigration, accounting for an average of 60-65% of Canada’s permanent residents annually. Temporary residents such as workers and students have been targeted as preferential applicants for permanent residence. However, unrestrained growth of temporary residence programs, coupled with permanent residence selection policies and ad hoc Ministerial Instructions and policy directives have weakened the cohesiveness of our economic immigration program as a whole, leaving many without a viable pathway to permanent residence. Meanwhile, the Express Entry system continues to invite candidates from abroad with weaker labour market ties and, arguably, a lower likelihood of positive immigration outcomes.

The CBA Section recommends a more coordinated approach to immigration selection that aligns Canada’s short-term labour market needs while allowing temporary residents to clearly and explicitly anticipate long-term settlement options. The current patchwork of individual streams lacks coherence and navigability, while also leaving temporary residents in the unenviable position of relocating to Canada with their families, only to realize years later that they will not be able to remain on a long-term basis, which tarnishes the country’s reputation internationally.

Temporary Residents

The last ten-year period has seen an explosive increase in the number of temporary residents admitted to Canada, without a corresponding growth in pathways to permanent residence. This has led to the creation of a large underclass of workers and students who were recruited by the words of Minister Marco Mendicino: “We don’t just want you to study here, we want you to stay here.” ⁷⁶ While no guarantee was extended to study permit holders with aspirations of obtaining permanent residence., there is widespread frustration among the international student population and a marked decrease in study permit applications⁷⁷. While this may temporarily ease system pressures, it risks undermining Canada’s ability to recruit top global talent.

Going forward, we recommend a two-stage EOI and invitation to apply system, which would allow for more considered and equitable selection and management of study permit applications in which candidates could be allocated points based on factors including educational history, previous degrees, grades, language ability, financial means, in-demand occupations, educational institution, etc. Issuance of Invitations to Apply could then be managed in a manner that rewards merit and enables timely processing of “right sized” student cohorts, eliminating existing issues with oversaturation of students in fields with poor labour market outcomes, and prioritizing of university over college entrants.

We also encourage creation of humanitarian study permits streams, a guarantee of more timely processing of applications, and eased rules to allow transfer from one school to another in high demand fields, or at the same level of study. The EOI system must be transparent, necessitating effective public messaging, and Invitations to Apply must be carefully managed to control runaway inventory and prolonged processing delays We also recommend that AI tools be leveraged AI to manage, triage and support program delivery while enhancing economic/social vibrancy and limiting discrimination.

Similarly, the CBA Section has concerns about the viability of the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) scheme as a means to assess labour market needs. A key concern is the rise of fraud within this program, including widespread reports of sale of LMIAs. We also have concerns that the removal of arranged employment points across the entire Express Entry system is an overcorrection that hampers the permanent residence selection system – penalizing those with legitimate labour market attachment - without eliminating the stated goal of fraud prevention.⁷⁸

There are several features of the temporary residence scheme that pose operational challenges to both IRCC and CBSA while causing avoidable hardship to applicants, often without a clear policy rationale. For example, the maintained status provisions⁷⁹ permit workers and students maintain their current authorization during processing of an extension application, but only if they remain in Canada. These rules cause confusion and uncertainty for those who are required to travel during the often lengthy processing of their application, and compel many applicants to cease working after their return because processing is delayed for extended periods. We recommend amending these provisions to ensure that authorization to work continues upon an applicant’s return to Canada, provided the extension application has not been refused during their absence. Similarly, applicants for restoration of status who apply to be restored within the 90-day window⁸⁰ ought to be permitted to work or study while their application is being processed.

We further recommend enabling temporary workers already in Canada to switch employers while a new LMIA application is in process, or where an LMIA application has been submitted and an Acknowledgement of Receipt has been issued. Given that in-Canada applications for changes to work conditions are currently taking six months or longer, the CBA Section questions the rationale for not allowing workers to switch employers while on a valid work permit.

Similarly, we question the policy basis for requiring students to apply for and obtain new study permits before commencing study at a new institution. IRCC could revise or update the regulations and the language governing work and study permits to facilitate continued work and/or study without the need for repeat applications.

We also encourage the government to foster a culture of self-reporting and self-remediation. Whether for non-compliant employers or PR applicants who catch a mistake in their applications - allow people to own up to and fix their mistakes. Recognizing that honest errors are part of any human system, a measured response that emphasizes education and correction—rather than punishment in the absence of fraud—can enhance trust and system integrity overall.

Any new framework should also clarify employer obligations, particularly under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Employer compliance measures must be structured to identify misconduct without penalizing workers who may have been exploited or subjected to abuse. The goal of enforcement should be to protect the integrity of programs while upholding the dignity of workers. The CBA Section supports a rebalancing of employer sanction frameworks to ensure that workers are not penalized for the conduct of others.

With respect to visitor visas, we recommend the creation of distinct subcategories to differentiate urgent travel or humanitarian need from traditional tourism. This would enable greater transparency and help applicants better understand when and how their application will be prioritized for processing.

Caps and Queues

Canada’s temporary resident system is under growing scrutiny, with signals from all major political parties indicating a desire to reduce or streamline temporary resident admissions. If this direction is pursued, it is vital that intake management measures—including caps and queues—be developed in accordance with principles of fairness, transparency, accountability, and procedural integrity.

The CBA Section supports the use of publicly justified intake caps as one tool to help manage application volumes and system integrity. However, caps must not be implemented arbitrarily or administered through opaque systems. They should be preceded by advance public communication, guided by clear criteria, and subject to time-limited implementation. Stakeholder consultation is essential to ensure such tools respond to actual operational realities and regional needs. Applicants should be advised clearly of intake limits and what happens once caps are reached. This is particularly important for time-sensitive applications, where delayed processing can render the application moot—yet these cases may still accumulate in backlogs, inflating inventories and reducing overall system responsiveness.

These intake management decisions must not rely on automation or AI tools that lack transparency, navigability, or accountability. The CBA Section strongly cautions against the use of unregulated, opaque, or poorly explained triage mechanisms that substitute for principled, human-reviewed decision-making. As noted elsewhere in this submission, responsible use of automation requires a clear legal framework, human oversight, public auditability, and avenues for redress.

Reforms to the temporary resident system must also be tied to real labour market needs. The current LMIA framework does not adequately respond to economic realities or regional demand. A re-evaluation of how TR pathways align with Canada's workforce needs is urgently required.

The CBA Section does not propose specific caps or formulas. Rather, we emphasize the need for a principled framework—one that is transparent, evidence-based, respectful of applicants’ rights, and rooted in the IRPA’s objectives. We welcome the opportunity to serve as a collaborative partner in any efforts to reform or recalibrate the temporary resident system.

Permanent Residence

The Express Entry System currently in place represents a hybrid between pre-existing permanent residence categories – the FSW class, Canadian experience class, federal skilled trade class, and provincial nominee class – and the Comprehensive Ranking System, which is defined by Ministerial Instructions, and is fundamental in defining who among the pool of eligible candidates will receive an invitation to apply. This two-tier system creates serious lack of intelligibility for users, such that mere eligibility in one of the existing classes means little in terms of whether a person will be able to advance an application for permanent residence. Applicants must navigate overlapping eligibility and ranking systems within the same program stream, which introduces confusion and inconsistency.

This layering of class-based and CRS-based criteria undermines the IRPA’s goals by reducing transparency and navigability.

For these reasons, the CBA Section proposes that the CRS Ranking criteria be defined in regulations, which would improve transparency and accountability in respect of provisions that are seminal to permanent residence selection policy, while also streamlining and de-cluttering the selection machinery. For example, IRCC should consider the introduction of a single points calculation system for Express Entry (EE).

Currently, applicants are required to calculate points across three distinct components of the EE program: FSW, PNP, and the CRS. Only the Canadian Experience Class has straightforward eligibility criteria. For the FSW and PNP streams, applicants must first calculate eligibility points to qualify for the program, and then calculate CRS points for the EE pool. Many of the criteria assessed are identical across both steps.

This duplication is inefficient and unnecessary, and a streamlined assessment process would better serve applicants and administrators alike. After ten years of experience with Express Entry, this improvement should be readily achievable. There is no clear policy rationale for maintaining two overlapping point thresholds.

8.7 Revitalizing Immigration Business Programs

Representatives are routinely approached by experienced business people who possess both the financial capacity and entrepreneurial expertise to purchase or establish businesses in Canada. Currently, however, there is no robust federal immigration pathway tailored to these candidates.

We appreciate the challenges inherent in effectively adjudicating entrepreneurial capability; that fraud had been an issue in prior iterations of the entrepreneur and investor streams, and that Canada does not wish to be seen as having “cash-for-visa” programs. These are legitimate concerns. However, if Canada’s mandate is to stimulate economic growth it is difficult to reconcile the prioritization of conventional employer-employee immigration models with the limited options available to the very business leaders and innovators who create jobs and drive innovation.

The previous Federal Immigrant Investor Program and Entrepreneur Program were eliminated due to concerns around economic impact, program integrity, and limited long-term retention, yet their statutory presence in the IRPA sends a mixed message about whether Canada remains open to business immigration. The only business-focused lines of business still in existence are the following—none of which sufficiently address the current demand from exceptional entrepreneurs seeking to make Canada their permanent home:

• The Start-Up Visa (SUV) Program, which focuses on scalable, innovation-driven businesses but has strict eligibility and limited scalability.
• Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs), including the Quebec Investor and Entrepreneur Program, many of which offer entrepreneur or investor streams, but vary widely in structure, quotas, and processing timelines.
• The Self Employed (SE) Class, which was designed to create a pathway to permanent residence for experienced business people whose self-employment might bring a significant benefit to Canada.

SUV Program

The SUV program has been rendered less effective by inadequate oversight of Designated Organizations, and the rapid and unregulated increase in Commitment Certificates. Originally designed to foster innovative start-up operations in Canada, DOs were meant to assess the merits of a business plan and allow endorsed applications to benefit from expedited processing—typically within six to twelve months. Efficiency in this program is fundamental to program integrity. The world’s most brilliant and exceptional innovators will go to other jurisdictions if Canada does not facilitate timely execution of their business plan.

Substantial growth in the SUV category has led to lengthy processing times, and contrary to the original intent of the program, visa officers are now undertaking complex business evaluations that were supposed to be delegated to the DOs, creating significant redundancies and slowing down program delivery. This has left many legitimate business owners in the position that poor program implementation has directly contributed to issues in business execution, and negatively impacted their immigration outcome. In addition, inconsistent implementation of the program at visa offices abroad has raised serious concerns about procedural fairness and program integrity.⁸¹.

The department has responded to this crisis by removing accreditation for certain DOs and has also implemented caps on commitment certificates. However, without clear and transparent criteria for merit-based assessments and a clear framework for timely processing, supported by enforceable service standards, these reforms will not get at the root of the problem. The CBA Sections recommends replacing the current DO model, and implementation of a new points based system that attributes points for things such as alignment with high-demand sectors, existence of investment funds by credible Canadian sources, years of previous business experience, and demonstrated success in prior ventures by team members, among others.

Self Employed Program

The Self-Employed Program, which has formed an integral though small part of Canada’s business immigration program, has historically divided self-employed applicants in three distinct sectors: culture, athletics and farming. The Program suspended farming applications in March 2018 and, in April 2024, was paused in its entirety until the end of 2026 due to a considerable increase in applications volume. The Self-Employed Program has stimulated economic growth, particularly through specific industry sectors such as film and television production and professional sports. Although the Program is part of the “business immigration program” designed to promote economic growth in Canada, the threshold for financial assessment only required applicants to demonstrate that they could support themselves and their dependent family members in accordance with the Low-Income cut-off figures. This minimum threshold is not aligned with the fundamental principles of economic stimulation expected of business immigration.

We recommend that the Self-Employed Program be re-introduced, albeit with a higher threshold for financial assessment, to better align with the Program’s economic objectives. A revised Self-Employed Program should have a registration and scoring system that enables IRCC to select applicants they feel will best contribute to the economy and offer Invitations to Apply similar to Express Entry. This would assist IRCC in controlling inventory and emphasize to prospective applicants that only the strongest applicants will have an opportunity to apply for PR.

Despite current challenges in program design and delivery, demand remains high. IRCC’s own internal documentation indicates that as of February 2024, there were in excess of 13,000 business immigration applications currently in process⁸². This inventory could take 7.7 years or more to process based upon current processing projections, effectively depriving Canada of a meaningful, timely and responsive business immigration program.

Residency By Investment and other Innovative Options

In 2014, the CBA Section recommended the introduction of a Residency by Investment Class (BEC)⁸³. We ask that this proposal be given meaningful consideration, as it would allow prospective business immigrants to obtain work permits using existing provisions⁸⁴ to obtain permanent residence if they can meet pre-determined criteria demonstrating the success of their Canadian business venture. This model would incentivize investment and innovation in Canada, and offer a more concrete basis for assessing business acumen and integration, since it would be premised on the applicant’s degree of business establishment within the community where they operate, number of FTE positions created, revenues achieved, and other markers of success including revenue generation for other domestic businesses.

In this proposed class, thresholds for investment and job creation should be established, along with a set period for the business to be operational. At the end of that period, candidates would have the option of applying for permanent residency if they have met the pre-established thresholds and have operated their business in accordance with their initial commitments; those who have not met these benchmarks would be precluded from applying for permanent residency in the class.

We also recommend creating an effective federal-level offering for passive investors who may not qualify under the but who: (1) are seeking a more stable and straightforward pathway akin to residency-by-investment models in other countries; and (2) want to invest in regional or high-priority economic development sectors. Canada competes with countries such as the United States (EB-5 program), United Kingdom (Innovator and Global Talent visas), Australia (Business Innovation and Investment Program), New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, UAE, and Ireland. These countries offer flexible, often expedited, pathways to permanent residency or long-term visas in exchange for capital investment, business activity, or job creation.⁸⁵

Sensitivities surrounding perceptions of “buying” residency or citizenship have long persisted, but could be mitigated by a carefully designed investor and entrepreneur program that channels capital into underdeveloped regions, infrastructure, climate transition, or affordable housing. Such initiatives could also foster mentorship, job creation, innovation, and community revitalization, or to support succession planning for retiring Canadian business – addressing gaps in economic immigration that are not skills-based. The federal government is uniquely positioned to standardize vetting and compliance frameworks; reduce duplication of provincial efforts and offer national-level policy direction aligned with Canada’s economic strategy.

Our recommendations aim to support the launch of modern, integrity-focused federal investor and entrepreneur programs that re-engage the global investor and entrepreneur class—not only to attract capital, but to advance innovation, regional vitality, and long-term economic resilience. A modern, integrity-focused and purpose-driven approach to investor and entrepreneur immigration would position Canada as a leader in economic migration policy while reinforcing national and regional priorities.⁸⁶

8.8 A Pathway to Status for Non-Status Workers in Canada

Canada has long faced the reality of undocumented individuals living and working without status—many of whom are integrated into communities and contribute meaningfully to the economy. With the dramatic change in the levels plan for 2025, and the newly stated goal to reduce the population of temporary residents in Canada, we anticipate that this number will grow substantially. While recent construction-sector and caregiver-sector initiatives mark a commitment to retaining workers in fields facing labour shortages, a broader, structured pathway is required. We recommend a two-tier regularization program: one leading to permanent residence for long-established workers and the other to a temporary work permit for recently arrived individuals.

There is no single overarching definition for persons known as non-status (unlawful) foreign nationals. They may include people who do not have legal documents that permit them to remain in Canada on a permanent basis. They may be documented – meaning that they are known to IRCC– or undocumented – including those who hold an expired work, study or visitor permit, victims of human trafficking, rejected refugee claimants and those awaiting decisions on H&C applications.

Since 1960, Canada has developed numerous programs to regularize the status of anywhere between 900 to over 100,000 persons. While the issue is complex, and regularizing efforts can carry unintended consequences, such as rewarding immigration non-compliance, undocumented foreign nationals are often unfairly presumed to be the authors of their demise, labeled as queue jumpers who have shown disregard for immigration law and policy. This perception fails to account for victims of human trafficking, neglectful or exploitative representation and other abuses. There may also be a large pool of individuals contributing to the economy by filling labour shortages for whom regularization could result in more benefits than harms. One recent example is the Ontario Construction Worker Regularization Program, officially known as the "Permanent residence for out-of-status construction workers in the Greater Toronto Area", a federal initiative aimed at addressing labor shortages in the construction industry while providing a pathway to permanent residency for eligible workers. This program demonstrated that regularization initiatives can yield economic benefits by addressing persistent labour shortages in essential sectors.⁸⁷

If further regularization programs are contemplated, they should be structured in a principled, equitable, and accessible manner. As demonstrated in past sector-specific initiatives, regularization pathways can serve important economic and humanitarian objectives—but only when designed in ways that are systematic and transparent, rather than ad hoc or administratively burdensome. The CBA Section encourages government to consult with experienced stakeholders in the development of any future programs to ensure their fairness, clarity, and alignment with broader immigration policy goals.

8.9 The Right to Counsel: Enshrining and Enhancing the Role and Recognition of Lawyers

IRCC should formally recognize and inform on the constitutional right to counsel in all immigration and refugee proceedings. Lawyers are essential participants in Canada’s immigration ecosystem. They act as interpreters of law, facilitators of access, protectors against fraud, and trusted navigators in a system that is increasingly digital, complex, and opaque. In a techno-centric immigration landscape, where digital portals, algorithmic triage, and procedural nuance are the norm, representatives play a crucial role in ensuring that fairness, accessibility, and justice are preserved.

Where the Federal Court and the IRB often emphasize the value of good representation in improving access to justice, IRCC’s public messaging disproportionately focuses on the risks of using representatives, warning applicants about unlawful or unscrupulous practitioners without equally emphasizing the critical and positive role of ethical licensed professionals. While protecting applicants from fraud is important, the absence of balanced, affirming messaging distorts the public narrative. It implies that working with a representative is inherently risky, thereby undermining trust in legitimate legal support and deterring people—especially the most vulnerable—from seeking help.

IRCC has historically collaborated with representatives through conferences, technical briefings, working groups, and one-on-one engagements. These experiences have shown that when IRCC and the professional immigration bar engage in developing process and policy, the outcomes are more balanced, inclusive, and responsive. However, this collaboration is sporadic and not meaningfully institutionalized. To truly modernize the system, IRCC must formally integrate representatives, recognizing their expertise, into its policy, program and service design, for the benefit of applicants, and the system’s integrity and sustainability.

Representatives are also a critical safeguard against misinformation, ghost consultants, and unregulated actors. They help vulnerable populations—including refugees, non-status individuals, and temporary foreign workers—navigate legal pathways that are otherwise inaccessible. A fair and functioning immigration system depends not just on law and technology, but on people who bridge the gap between the two.

In addition, the CBA Section is opposed to the use of Administrative Penalties and Consequences against lawyers.⁸⁸ The right to counsel must be constitutionally protected, particularly in an era when immigration law is increasingly complex and its consequences profound.⁸⁹ Ensuring that immigrants and refugees are not left to navigate Canada’s legal maze alone is not only a legal imperative — it is a moral one. Applying Administrative Penalties and Consequences to immigration lawyers risks undermining legal independence, chilling advocacy, and confusing regulatory accountability. A more constructive path is to bolster collaboration with law societies, focus enforcement on unregulated actors, and reinforce training and professional development. Immigration proceedings can involve life-altering consequences, including detention, deportation, family separation, or loss of status.

Deportation and inadmissibility decisions affect liberty, security, and family unity, rights protected under s. 7 of the Charter. Legal counsel is essential to a fair process when individuals face the state’s complex immigration machinery. Many individuals in immigration proceedings are not fluent in English/French, lack legal and now digital literacy, and are under immense emotional and financial stress. Without legal representation, they face systemic disadvantage, especially against experienced government counsel. The consequences of immigration errors are often permanent and irreversible. Legal counsel acts as a safeguard against arbitrary detention, removal to unsafe countries, or refusal of family reunification. Eroding the independence of the legal profession undermines these vital protections.

8.10 Modernizing Canada’s Immigration Adjudication Framework: Enhancing Rules, Technology, and Fairness in a Digital Era

The modernization of Canada’s immigration adjudication landscape, particularly at the IRB and Federal Court levels, represents an essential evolution toward greater efficiency, transparency, and access to justice. However, technological advancement must be guided by legal clarity, procedural safeguards, and a commitment to equity. As AI and automated systems are increasingly integrated into administrative decision-making and tribunal operations, it is imperative that they be deployed responsibly with attention to their potential to replicate bias and exacerbate systemic barriers.

The rules governing these bodies must not merely facilitate digitization—they must actively protect fairness, ensure informed participation, and offer clear guidance to all parties, including the increasing number of self-represented litigants. A foundational part of this effort includes recognition of the role of authorized representatives, upholding plain-language communication, maintaining non-digital access for those who need it, and ensuring robust oversight of emerging technologies. Canada’s immigration and refugee determination systems are among the most vital expressions of our commitment to human rights and the rule of law. As we modernize, we must ensure that efficiency does not come at the expense of equity, and that innovation reinforces— rather than replacing—our core legal and democratic values.

Immigration and Refugee Board

The CBA Section has made detailed and separate submissions to the IRB regarding several issues.⁹⁰ However, in the context of this IRPA and IRPR review, we believe it is important to reiterate and endorse some general observations about the IRB’s modernization. We are pleased to see the IRB moving towards a digital tribunal as part of its broader efforts to modernize and refine program delivery, integrity, and compliance. We note this includes the digitization of delivery, information collection, data storage, document management, and the expanding use of AI and ADM. Apprehension remains over the move to techno-solutionism, particularly where it may perpetuate historical bias and e-marginalization through automation.

The new Rules will have to contemplate and allow for the expansive use of technology like AI and ADM, and should function as an important safety measure to complement wider national initiatives currently underway at the IRB. Lasting changes to the Rules and the move to a digital tribunal must include clear parameters for the responsible use of these technologies. Given the jump from text to sound, to image and other content, AI poses new challenges for the integrity of pleadings and proceedings. The need for notice of AI use and explicability is because of growing risks, including deepfake possibilities. Given the emergence of fabricated evidence in courts – mainly criminal courts at present, the use as evidence or tools for deception in legal proceedings is becoming a growing concern. The requirement for AIAs and privacy assessments is critical as is the need for transparent triaging and decision-trees.

Another pressing reason to require notice and explicability of AI use before the IRB is that the rapid use of AI will not only threaten proceedings but may also prejudice the individuals appearing before the tribunal. As AI use transcends the role of a mere document generator and enters the domain of offering legal advice, this prompts consideration of whether the outcome would differ if the services were provided by unlicensed humans instead of AI. It raises questions about the extent to which AI-driven platforms can offer legal assistance without proper licensure and where to draw the line between “assistance”, “misrepresentation” and “fraud”.

Unauthorized representatives may exploit the benefits of AI technology and broader access to digital immigration information to “ghost” immigration applications or pleadings, presenting themselves as self-represented applicants for personal financial gain. Despite existing challenges with ghost representation, the availability of online data and improved self-help tools could exacerbate the issue, allowing individuals to ghost even on complex applications like those at the Court. These developments raise new and pressing questions: What will a self-represented applicant mean, going forward? How can the IRB respond to increasing caseloads fueled in part by new technological options? Therefore, at the very least, the IRB and other parties should be informed and the broader community made aware of an obligation in the Rules to advise and explain any AI use that creates evidence, pleadings, etc.

To promote transparency in the use of AI and other technology, the Rules should address overall data management, including security, accessibility, and understandability, as well as the purpose and preparation of the data. Domestically, the Directive on Automated Decision-Making and the Guide on the Use of Generative AI are excellent frameworks that highlight key best practices, as well as legal and practical considerations. Again, the Rules should be flexible enough to allow for the responsible use of ADM, e.g., for scheduling, extension requests, etc., as a starting point.

Federal Court

The Federal Court is facing an unprecedented increase in workload and a rapidly evolving technological landscape. At the same time, support from the Courts Administration Service is limited by financial constraints. The CBA Section has made separate, detailed submissions regarding various issues before the Federal Court, which we do not repeat here.⁹¹ However, a few key recommendations bear directly on the IRPA and are therefore important to include in this submission.

The Federal Court too, should be commended for its modernization initiatives. However, its ability to address access to justice issues is limited by funding shortfalls and increased volumes that are beyond its control. Simply put, issues with IRCC program delivery have created a significant push-along effect to the Federal Court with a profound impact on access to justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

We are aware that the court will be undertaking a Global Review of its Rules, and the CBA Section has made separate recommendations to the Court in that regard.⁹² We support a stand-alone set of Rules for citizenship, immigration and refugee matters and recommend that a sub-committee be struck to pursue this initiative.

We also recommend that the Federal Court filing fee be increased, with any additional funds directed back to the Court to support its operations and maintain judicial independence. This is particularly relevant to the comments raised above regarding the IRB which apply equally here, as additional funding will be critical to addressing challenges to the integrity, pace and evolving nature of proceedings in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Canadian courts have periodically adjusted their filing fees.⁹³ These adjustments aim to reflect the actual costs of litigation, promote efficient case management, and ensure equitable access to justice. They are also part of a broader effort to modernize court infrastructure in line with the demands of contemporary litigation.

Finally, we recommend the establishment of a uniform 60-day filing deadline, regardless of where the application originates. The extended timeline for inland applications may allow applicants to pursue other remedies or to resolve the matter without litigation - options that are currently constrained by the existing 15-day limit.

8.11 Toward a Centralized, Transparent, and Searchable Immigration Policy Database: Learning from Australia’s Legend.com Model

In an increasingly digital immigration environment, the need for centralized, real-time, and user-friendly access to immigration policies, legislation, and application procedures has never been greater. Canada's immigration framework is governed by a complex array of instruments—statutes, regulations, ministerial instructions, program delivery updates, operational bulletins, and internal guidance documents—that are often scattered across multiple platforms. Historical and informal instruments can be difficult to locate, and previous versions are sometimes impossible to find given the lack of a clear system for archiving prior policies, which can frustrate access that is necessary in litigation. This fragmentation creates confusion for applicants , representatives, decision-makers, and service providers.

Australia’s immigration system offers a well-developed model through LEGEND.com a secure, subscription-based online legal database managed by the Australian Department of Home Affairs. LEGEND.com consolidates the full suite of migration and citizenship legislation, policies, gazette notices, forms, and historical materials into a searchable, hyperlink-enabled interface. Used widely by legal professionals and institutions, LEGEND.com enhances application quality, regulatory compliance, and procedural efficiency. Canadian immigration stakeholders—especially those working with vulnerable populations—would benefit greatly from a similar, centralized information system that streamlines access and aligns with principles of transparency, accountability, and fair process. This must enable “point in time” searching.

The establishment of a centralized, searchable electronic database for immigration law, policy, and procedure would mark a significant modernization of Canada's immigration system. Such a platform would reduce barriers to accurate information, improve the quality of applications submitted, and enhance consistency in both applicant understanding and officer decision-making. Moreover, by ensuring that internal guidance and operational instructions are disclosed—where legally and ethically permissible—the system would reinforce public trust and accountability.

In the face of growing application volumes, digital transformation, and increasing use of AI in decision-making, a centralized legal and policy database would bring much-needed clarity, stability, and confidence for all users of the immigration system. It is not only an innovation—it is a necessary tool for a fair and future-ready immigration system.

8.12 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
60.	Implementing Systemic Measures to Streamline Immigration Processing and Ensure Fairness	Introduce systemic measures to address processing backlogs and delays, including transparent intake mechanisms, predictable timelines, and real-time case status updates. Programs like the Parents and Grandparents sponsorship stream should be reformed to reflect the seriousness of family reunification, with clear criteria and stable, long-term planning. Automated triage systems must operate under publicly disclosed criteria, with performance monitoring and audit trails to ensure fairness and accountability.
61.	Establish Clear Service Standards for the Processing of PRTDs	Establish clear service standards for the processing of PRTDs, including expedited pathways for urgent or humanitarian cases. Communication must be improved through timely updates, accessible status checks, and decision letters that include clear, plain-language reasons and next steps. Clear service standards are essential to ensure that overseas permanent residents are not left in legal or practical limbo due to prolonged processing times or lack of communication.
62.	Enhancing Immigration Decision-Making Through Comprehensive Officer Training	Develop a national training framework for immigration officers, modelled on best practices such as Australia’s College of Immigration Officers. Core training should include plain-language writing, trauma-informed interviewing, cultural competence, and principles of procedural fairness. Specialized instruction should support consistent and principled assessment of credibility, discretion, and risk across all decision-makers.
63.	Implementing Robust Auditing and Reporting Mechanisms in Immigration Systems	As noted above, enforce service standards under the Service Fees Act and mandate regular public reporting on processing performance, disaggregated by stream, region, and decision point. Implement rolling performance audits to identify delays, assess disparities, and improve consistency. ADM tools must include built-in audit functions, external oversight, and access to data for independent review. Stakeholder engagement—including regular consultation with legal professionals and civil society—should be embedded in operational policy development.
64.	Harnessing Data Analytics for Equitable and Evidence-Based Decision-Making	Expand the use of data analytics to support equitable and evidence-based decision-making, while ensuring safeguards for privacy, transparency, and accountability. Data must be reviewed regularly to detect and correct systemic bias, and to track applicant experiences by region, stream, and demographic group. Use analytics to identify process bottlenecks, inform training needs, and support more responsive and inclusive service design.
65.	Implementing Systemic Measures to Streamline Immigration Processing and Ensure Fairness IRPR, s. 186(u) and 182	Remove “if they have remained in Canada after the expiry of their work permit” and amend s.182 to enable work or study during processing of an application for restoration that was filed in a timely way. We recommend consideration of a bridging permit model, similar to that used in Australia, to support continuity of status and reduce disruption for workers and students.
66.	Establish a Transparent Process for Setting Intake Caps and Managing Queues	Adopt a clear and accountable process for setting or adjusting caps across temporary resident streams. This should include advance public notice, justification for caps, time-limited implementation, and periodic review to ensure relevance and fairness.
67.	Ensure Communication of Application Consequences Once Caps Are Met	Clearly communicate to applicants that applications submitted after a cap is reached may not be accepted or processed. This is particularly important for time-sensitive categories such as temporary resident visas (TRVs).
68.	Engage Stakeholders and Monitor Impacts of Intake Management Measures	Conduct regular consultation with legal and community stakeholders when setting caps or pausing intake. Report publicly on the rationale, impact, and effectiveness of intake management tools to promote accountability and continuous improvement.
69.	Removing Unnecessary Barriers: Enabling Mobility for Workers and Students	Amend the IRPR regulations and operational guidance to: Allow temporary workers in Canada to begin work with a new employer upon submission of a new employer-specific LMIA-based application and issuance of an Acknowledgment of Receipt. Permit international students to begin studies at a new Designated Learning Institution upon filing a change of school notification, without needing prior issuance of a new study permit.
70.	Protecting Workers, Encouraging Accountability: Reforming Employer Sanctions Under the IRPR	Recommend the implementation of a fairer employer sanction framework that does not penalize applicants for the conduct of others. A feature would include establishing a formal self-reporting and remediation framework under the IRPR that: Allows applicants and employers to voluntarily disclose and correct errors or non-compliance (e.g., minor misrepresentations or document omissions) before punitive action is taken. Creates space for restorative outcomes—such as compliance agreements or conditional approvals—instead of automatic inadmissibility or bans. Clarifies that workers will not be penalized for employer violations, provided they were unaware or unable to control the non-compliance. Ensures that employer sanctions are proportionate, targeted, and focused on deliberate and systemic misconduct, not good-faith errors.
71.	Define Eligibility and Selection Factors in the Regulations IRPA, ss. 11, s.20 and 220	One potential concept is to define eligibility and selection factors in the regulations, aligned with s.11 of the IRPA (application requirements) and s.20 of the IRPA (requirements for temporary residents), including academic history, language proficiency, financial sufficiency and labour market alignment and regional demand
72.	Amend the IRPR to Authorize an EOI System for Temporary Entry IRPR, ss. 10.1-10.3, s.20, s.25.2, s.87.3, s.207, s. 211.1, 216(1)	Thought given to modelling study permits and TRVs after s.10.1 of the IRPR (already used for Express Entry). New provisions in the IRPR Part 9 (Temporary Residents), modeled on s.10.1 of the IRPR and adapted for visitor and study permit classes. Amend IRPR to include performance-based allocation criteria for Designated Learning Institutions: Based on outcomes, compliance (IRPR s.211.1), and capacity to support international students. Enable AI-supported triage and intake systems, with human oversight, through new provisions in the IRPR s.10.1–10.3 (mirroring Express Entry’s system functionality for TRV and International Student Program streams).
73.	New Municipal Level Agreements	Amend the IRPA to explicitly authorize the Minister to enter agreements with municipalities to support education-based immigration and integration pathways.
74.	New Pathways for Study Permits	Create new regulatory study permit classes under Part 9 of the IRPR: “In-Demand Occupations Study Permit Class” – tied to Canada’s National Occupation Classification, Separate “College Stream” and “University Stream” – allowing tailored eligibility standards under s.216(1) of the IRPR, “Municipal Nominee Study Stream” – similar in structure to s.87.3 of the IRPR (PNPs), “Humanitarian Study Permit Class” – amend the IRPR to include public policy considerations under s.25.2 of the IRPA and s.207 of the IRPR.
75.	New Pathways for TRVs	Amend s.179 of the IRPR (issuance of TRVs) to introduce purpose-based TRV categories: Humanitarian/Urgent Travel TRVs, Family TRVs, Business TRVs, Tourist TRVs
76.	Minimize Duplication and Complexity in Express Entry Point Systems	The CRS criteria be defined in the IRPR. This would enhance transparency, consistency, and legal certainty in permanent residence selection. IRCC should move to a single points-based assessment system across all Express Entry pathways. Specifically: Eliminate the need to calculate program-specific points (e.g., FSW grid) for Express Entry selection purposes. Use a unified CRS-based model as the sole determinant of candidate ranking and eligibility across EE programs. Retain basic eligibility criteria (age, language, work experience) per stream, but remove redundant numeric thresholds. Example of Proposed Simplification: Current System Recommended Reform FSW: 67-point threshold + CRS Eliminate 67-point threshold PNP: Nominee eligibility + CRS Use CRS only for ranking CEC: Eligibility + CRS Maintain as-is CRS: Common to all Retain and codify in regulations
77.	Investor Pathway	Introduce a Residency-by-Investment Program with options for passive investments in: 1) regional development funds, 2) green infrastructure, or 3) Canadian venture capital. Tiered investment levels ($500K–$2M) could correspond to expedited processing or eligibility for family members.
78.	Entrepreneur Pathway	Create a Federal Entrepreneur Visa separate from the Start-Up Visa, for applicants who: 1) have business ownership/management experience, 2) propose to acquire or expand a Canadian business, or 3) engage in rural/small community economic projects.
79.	Features of Potential Modernized Business Programs	Launch a targeted program for immigrants to acquire and operate existing Canadian SMEs facing closure due to retirement. Match applicants with businesses through a government-supported portal. Provide immigration bonus points, expedited PR pathways, or financial incentives for investments or businesses located in: 1) rural or remote areas, 2) regions with labour shortages, or 3) low-population-growth areas. Require audited net worth disclosures, source of funds verification, and third-party business validation to ensure program integrity. Establish performance-based criteria for PR (e.g. business success, job creation). Create a Federal Business Immigration Council to coordinate with provinces, regional development agencies, and private sector stakeholders. Align immigration with economic development goals. Implement regular program reviews and publish performance metrics (e.g. investment amounts, retention rates, economic impact). Sunset underperforming pilots and scale effective models. Fund dedicated services for immigrant entrepreneurs, including mentorship, language training, access to financing, and regulatory guidance tailored to newcomers.
80.	Self-Employed Program and Business Immigration Reform	Reinstate the Self-Employed Program with reforms that ensure it supports Canada's economic development mandate, while maintaining accessibility for world-class talent in non-traditional fields: Raise the financial assessment threshold to reflect a greater emphasis on economic stimulation and sustainability post-arrival. Introduce a registration and ranking system, akin to Express Entry, to allow IRCC to control inventory through targeted Invitations to Apply. Introduce a revised points-based selection mechanism for Self-Employed Program candidates, tailored to measure: Economic readiness (funds available, income history) Cultural or athletic achievement (national/international impact) Language ability and integration potential Contribution to local/regional economic development
81.	Introduce Multi-Phase Backlog Reduction Strategy	IRCC should implement a multi-phase backlog reduction strategy, including: Public transparency: Release updated processing timelines and inventory statistics. Voluntary program redirection: Offer eligible candidates the opportunity to withdraw or transfer into restructured pathways (e.g., entrepreneur pilot programs). Dedicated processing units: Establish specialized teams within IRCC to expedite resolution of backlogged business immigration files.
82.	Out of Status Worker Regularization Programs	Leveraging the lessons of past regularization efforts, any future out-of-status programs should balance humanitarian, economic, and rule-of-law objectives—allowing non-status individuals to step forward without fear, contribute fully, and, where appropriate, transition to full legal status.
83.	Protect and Affirm the Right to Counsel in Immigration Law as a Constitutional Guarantee	IRCC should formally recognize and promote the constitutional right to counsel in all immigration and refugee proceedings, and advocate for legislative reform that enshrines this right in the IRPA.
84.	Administrative Monetary Penalties Cannot Apply to Lawyers	IRCC must amend its Administrative Monetary Penalty policy framework to include a categorical exemption for lawyers, recognizing their existing professional discipline regimes.
85.	Public messaging Re Lawyers	To strengthen the rule of law, increase system efficiency, and foster greater public confidence in the Canadian immigration process, IRCC should take concrete steps to formally recognize and integrate immigration lawyers into its service delivery, policy development, and public messaging strategies. The role of lawyers should be clearly acknowledged and respected in all administrative processes before IRCC. This includes formal recognition in file intake, correspondence handling, procedural fairness letters, status inquiries, interview scheduling, and post-decision communication. Officers and decision-makers should be trained to understand the legal and ethical duties of counsel and to treat representatives as essential participants in the administrative justice process—not simply as third parties. Additionally, IRCC should collect and publish anonymized data to assess the impact of authorized representation on application quality, system efficiency, and outcomes. By elevating the role of lawyers from external actors to collaborative partners, IRCC will strengthen both the integrity and effectiveness of its immigration programs. Ensuring their full participation in administrative processes will reduce errors, miscommunications, and delays, while reaffirming Canada’s commitment to a fair, transparent, and professionally accountable immigration system.
86.	Securing Lawyer Access and Communication in Immigration Program Modernization	Lawyers should be meaningfully involved in the development and rollout of new programs, pilot initiatives, and digital platforms. IRCC’s digital infrastructure must also be improved to ensure that lawyers have secure, continuous access to application systems, receive real-time updates, and are fully integrated into communications with clients.
87.	Regulate and Transparently Integrate AI and ADM at the IRB	As the IRB transitions into a digital tribunal, it must enshrine clear safeguards in its Rules to address the expanding use of AI and ADM. While digital modernization can improve efficiency and access, it also carries significant risks of bias, discrimination, and e-marginalization. To prevent the misuse of generative AI tools in submissions and evidence, the IRB should adopt a mandatory AI disclosure rule, similar to the Federal Court’s AI Notice, which requires disclosure where AI is used to “create” pleadings or evidence. This promotes transparency and reinforces procedural integrity, while allowing non-essential administrative technologies to remain outside the scope of the rule. The IRB Rules must also require AIAs, privacy assessments, and disclosure of decision-making frameworks when AI tools are deployed in triage, scheduling, or any aspect of adjudication.
88.	Maintain Human-Centric Alternatives and Prevent the Digital Divide	The IRB must commit to maintaining non-digital access to justice options within its new Rules. Many claimants and appellants—particularly the self-represented, elderly, low-income, or recent arrivals—may lack reliable access to internet, devices, or digital literacy. Ensuring fairness requires that all parties retain the ability to engage with the IRB through non-digital means where needed. In parallel, the IRB should ensure all communications, forms, and procedural instructions are provided in plain language, with multilingual availability and accessible formats, to support understanding and meaningful participation across a diverse applicant base.
89.	Modernize and Consolidate Stand Alone Immigration-Related Rules in the Federal Court	The Federal Court’s increasing immigration caseload highlights the need for modernized, streamlined, and sector-specific rules. A review of the interaction between the Federal Courts Rules and the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules is timely and necessary. IRCC and the Department of Justice should support the creation of a subcommittee on immigration procedure reform to assess whether a standalone, consolidated set of Immigration Rules—would reduce complexity and improve access to justice. In doing so, the Court can respond nimbly to rising case volumes and technological realities.
90.	Support Sustainable Resourcing and Simplified Filing Structures in the Federal Court and New Timeline	To maintain the efficiency and independence of the Federal Court amidst growing demand and digital transformation, IRCC should support measures that strengthen the Court’s capacity. Specifically, we recommend that the filing fee for Federal Court immigration matters be doubled, with the surplus directed exclusively to resourcing the Court through the general fund or new measures.
91.	Standardized Deadline for Filing Leave Applications	The filing deadline for applications for leave and judicial review should be standardized at 60 days, regardless of origin, to reduce confusion and streamline applicant compliance. These changes will help balance the increased access to legal remedies made possible by automation with the institutional capacity needed to deliver timely, reasoned justice.
92.	Establish a Centralized Immigration Legal and Policy Database	IRCC should develop and maintain a single digital platform that consolidates immigration legislation (IRPA, IRPR), Ministerial Instructions, Program Delivery Instructions, operational bulletins, policy manuals, forms, and other guidance materials. This system should be updated in real time and reflect both current and archived versions for historical reference. Ensure the Platform Is Searchable, Accessible, and Professionally Managed The database should include an advanced search engine, hyperlinks between related documents (e.g., connecting legislative sections to corresponding policy), and built-in version tracking. Management should fall under a dedicated IRCC unit to ensure oversight, regular updates, and technical maintenance. Canada should draw on the successful Legend.com platform used by the Australian Department of Home Affairs, which provides subscription-based access to a centralized immigration legal database. Canadian adaptation should maintain both public and licensed access tiers, to support transparency and professional use.
93.	Include Authorized Representative Access and Participation	Authorized representatives should be given full access to the platform to enhance the quality of representation, reduce avoidable errors, and foster greater consistency in application preparation and interpretation of evolving policy.
94.	Support Open Government Principles by Publishing Disclosable Internal Policy	Where operational instructions and internal guidance are disclosable under current privacy and access-to-information frameworks, they should be included in the database. Transparency in decision-making supports procedural fairness, reduces litigation, access to information requests and upholds Canada’s reputation for rule-of-law immigration governance.

These recommendations offer a roadmap to transition from an outdated, volume-driven model to a targeted, transparent, and adaptable immigration framework. By updating the IRPA and IRPR to authorize new systems, new streams, and institution-based performance metrics, Canada can better balance humanitarian, educational, and economic immigration priorities.

Processing capacity is not merely a technical challenge—it is a matter of justice, public confidence, and institutional credibility. Delays and mismanages decisions undermine the very rights the system claims to uphold. Canada stands at a pivotal moment in the evolution of its immigration system. As global migration dynamics shift, digital transformation accelerates, and public expectations grow, the need for a responsive, principled, and inclusive immigration framework has never been more urgent. The path forward requires more than new tools: It demands a structural and cultural recalibration.

From recognizing the vital role of lawyers to implementing accountable AI governance, from reintroducing equitable economic pathways to establishing transparent intake systems and digital databases, each recommendation reflects a deep commitment to building a system that works—for newcomers, decision-makers, and the Canadian public.

To achieve this vision, IRCC and its partners must lead with transparency, invest in sustainable capacity, and embed human-centered design across all aspects of policy and service delivery. This means recognizing immigration as more than a program of government, but a cornerstone of nation-building. With bold leadership, meaningful stakeholder collaboration, and attention to both rights and operational realities, Canada can maintain its global leadership in immigration while staying true to its democratic and humanitarian values.

The CBA Section urges Parliament to align legislative reform with operational modernization, ensuring that Canada’s immigration system delivers not only faster outcomes, but fairer and more sustainable ones.

IX. Shared Jurisdiction and Whole-of-Government Collaboration

Immigration is not the responsibility of any single institution or level of government. It is a shared jurisdiction under the Constitution and a shared societal project in practice. Immigration policy shapes labour markets, population growth, community development, and social inclusion across Canada. For the IRPA to remain relevant and effective, it must better reflect the interdependence of federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and civil society actors in shaping and delivering immigration outcomes.

The CBA Section supports legislative and structural reforms that enable coordinated governance and encourage inclusive policy development. Immigration cannot succeed in isolation—it requires ongoing collaboration, transparency, and a shared commitment to public confidence and institutional trust.

9.1 Strengthening Federal-Provincial-Territorial Cooperation

Provinces and territories play a growing role in immigration through selection, settlement, credential recognition, and labour market integration. However, the IRPA does not clearly reflect this role beyond bilateral agreements and delegated powers. A more dynamic framework is needed—one that supports ongoing Federal, Provincial and Territorial (FPT) coordination on program design, pilot development, and long-term immigration planning.

The CBA Section recommends that modernization of the IRPA include renewed commitments to intergovernmental collaboration, including clearer legislative language supporting joint planning, data sharing, and evaluation. This could take the form of a statutory FPT Immigration Table or an annual immigration strategy process that includes provinces, territories, and Indigenous governments as full participants.

Such a model would also allow for greater responsiveness to regional labour market needs, community settlement capacity, and population retention goals, particularly in rural and remote regions. Structured collaboration would reduce duplication and foster innovation.

9.2 Engaging Municipalities and Civil Society

Municipalities are on the front lines of integration—supporting housing, local labour market development, public health, education, and community services. Civil society organizations, including legal clinics, ethno-cultural associations, and service providers, play an essential role in helping newcomers navigate the system. Yet these actors remain under-recognized in the legislative framework.

The CBA Section recommends amending the IRPA to affirm the role of civil society and local governments in immigration governance. This could include legislative recognition of formal consultation structures, program evaluation roles, and engagement mechanisms in both policy development and implementation. Where new programs or policies are introduced, stakeholders should be notified in advance, consulted on delivery models, and appropriately resourced.

Public trust in immigration grows when the system reflects community realities and when those most affected have a voice in shaping outcomes. A collaborative framework is not just more democratic—it is also more effective.

9.3 Recognizing Cross-Border Indigenous Rights

Section 19 of the IRPA permits exemptions for persons registered under the Indian Act or those with equivalent status in the United States. However, the current framework fails to fully reflect the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to cross borders that predate Canada’s national boundaries.

The CBA Section recommends legislative reform to better recognize cross-border Indigenous mobility rights, including those affirmed under the Jay Treaty of 1794. While not codified in Canadian domestic law, the treaty and its principles remain foundational to many First Nations communities whose territories span both sides of the U.S.–Canada border.

Recognition of these rights should be reflected in both the Act and operational policies, ensuring that Indigenous peoples are not subject to immigration controls that fail to respect their sovereignty and historical continuity. Engagement with Indigenous communities must be undertaken to co-develop these provisions in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

9.4 Facilitating Credential Recognition

A coordinated immigration system must also address the ongoing challenge of foreign credential recognition. Skilled immigrants continue to face significant delays and barriers in having their professional qualifications recognized, resulting in underemployment and economic inefficiencies.

The CBA Section recommends that the IRPA modernization include commitments to improved interjurisdictional coordination on credential recognition, including shared targets, transparent processing timelines, and accountability mechanisms tied to FPT agreements. While the federal government does not directly regulate professions, it has a clear leadership role to play in convening regulatory bodies and streamlining processes.

Incorporating credential recognition into immigration planning—especially in economic categories—will ensure that selection criteria align with actual access to regulated occupations. This approach will also improve retention, satisfaction, and economic outcomes for newcomers and their communities.

9.5 Recommendations and Conclusion

The CBA Section recommends the following legislative and policy reforms:

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
95.	Building a Multilateral Immigration Strategy	Amend the IRPA to include provisions mandating structured FPT and municipal collaboration on immigration policy, program design, data sharing, and long-term planning. Legislative recognition of municipalities and civil society organizations as key stakeholders, including formal consultation and policy implementation roles must be added.
96.	Institutionalizing FPT and Municipal Partnerships	Establish mechanisms for inclusive, multilateral immigration strategy development involving federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, municipal, and civil society actors.
97.	Honouring the Jay Treaty: Legislating Indigenous Cross-Border Mobility, IRPA, s. 19	Amend s. 19 to explicitly affirm cross-border mobility rights of Indigenous peoples, referencing the Jay Treaty and developed in consultation with Indigenous governments.
98.	Strengthening Credential Recognition Systems with Federal-Provincial Collaboration	Mandate federal leadership in convening professional regulatory bodies to support transparent and timely credential recognition through formal FPT agreements.
99.	Establish a National Immigration Data Strategy	Mandate the creation of a coordinated FPT immigration data strategy to ensure timely, consistent, and disaggregated data collection, sharing, and reporting. This would support evidence-based policy development, improve program responsiveness, and enhance transparency across all levels of government.
100.	Embed Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Principles in Immigration Governance	Amend the IRPA to require that immigration policies, program development, and decision-making frameworks incorporate Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion considerations. This includes formal mechanisms for consulting historically marginalized communities and ensuring that immigration systems proactively address systemic barriers.

A modernized IRPA must recognize that immigration is a shared responsibility—both constitutionally and practically. No single institution or level of government can, in isolation, manage the complex, evolving demands of Canada's immigration system. A renewed legislative framework must embed collaboration at every level, mandating structured engagement with provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous governments, and civil society organizations. By institutionalizing multilateral partnerships and fostering transparent, inclusive decision-making, Canada can better align immigration outcomes with economic, demographic, and community realities across the country.

A modern immigration system must be more than efficient—it must be collaborative. The IRPA should reflect the shared nature of immigration governance, recognize the expertise and role of provinces, municipalities, and civil society, and affirm the rights of Indigenous peoples across borders. The CBA Section calls on Parliament to embed these commitments in law and build a future-focused immigration framework that is inclusive, coordinated, and capable of meeting national and regional needs.

Moreover, modernization must prioritize rights recognition and systemic fairness. This includes formally recognizing Indigenous cross-border mobility rights, integrating Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion principles, and ensuring that regulatory barriers to full economic participation—such as credential recognition challenges—are addressed. A coordinated national data strategy will further ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and that immigration programs remain responsive to both national priorities and local needs. Protecting public confidence requires a system that not only selects immigrants effectively but also supports their long-term integration and success through fair, transparent, and accountable governance.

The CBA Section urges Parliament to seize this opportunity for bold reform. By embedding collaboration, rights recognition, and accountability into the IRPA framework, Canada can build an immigration system that meets today’s challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities. A forward-looking IRPA will strengthen national unity, uphold Canada’s international commitments, and reflect the country’s enduring values of fairness, inclusion, and shared prosperity.

X. Epilogue: An Invitation to Co-Create the Future of Canadian Immigration

Immigration has shaped Canada’s past and will define its future. At its best, it reflects the country’s highest ideals—welcoming newcomers with fairness, dignity, and purpose. But for that vision to endure, the legal and policy frameworks that govern immigration must evolve. The IRPA, now over two decades old, no longer reflects the complexity of today’s migration challenges or the lived realities of those who rely on the system.

The CBA Section recognizes the formidable demands placed on IRCC and other institutions, which is why this submission is not just a critique of the current regime. It is intended as a contribution to a collaborative, future-focused project of renewal. We share the goal of building a system that is efficient, effective, and fair. And we offer the insights of legal professionals—lawyers, tribunal members, and judges—who bring daily experience with the consequences of legislative design, policy choices, and operational practices.

Modernization is not only necessary—it is achievable. And it must be grounded in values that reflect Canada’s constitutional and international commitments: compassion, integrity, equality, and the rule of law.

Reform must begin with clarity of purpose. The immigration system should enable, not deter. It should facilitate inclusion, not create barriers. It must advance economic and humanitarian objectives while upholding procedural fairness, transparency, and public accountability. These are not competing goals—they are mutually reinforcing pillars of a principled and effective legal framework.

The CBA Section brings this perspective forward with humility and resolve. We are not simply observers of the system—we are active partners in its daily functioning. Our members see where the law works, where it falters, and where change is most urgently needed.

We call on IRCC and Parliament to seize this opportunity—to rebuild trust, restore balance, and shape a legislative framework that reflects both Canada’s promise and its responsibilities. Immigration can continue to be a source of national strength, social renewal, and global leadership. But only if we build it together.

Annex A - List of Acronyms

• AI – Artificial Intelligence
• ADM – Automated Decision-Making
• CBSA – Canada Border Services Agency
• CBA – Canadian Bar Association
• CRS – Comprehensive Ranking System
• EOI – Expression of Interest
• FPT – Federal-Provincial-Territorial
• FSW – Federal Skilled Worker
• H&C - Humanitarian and Compassionate
• IRB – Immigration and Refugee Board
• IRCC – Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
• IRPA – Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
• IRPR – Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
• LMIA – Labour Market Impact Assessment
• MNI – Minimum Necessary Income
• PNP – Provincial Nominee Program
• PRRA – Pre-Removal Risk Assessment
• PRTD – Permanent Resident Travel Document
• SE – Self-Employed
• SUV – Start-Up Visa
• TRV – Temporary Resident Visa

Annex B – Summary of recommendations

#	Section	Recommended amendment(s)
II. Governance and Oversight: Embedding Accountability in the System and Realigning Canada’s Immigration Framework with the IRPA’s Objectives
1.	Limited Use of and Expanded Public Notice Requirements for Ministerial Instructions IRPA, s. 14.1, 87.3	In keeping with the 2013 CBA Resolution94, we recommend the IRPA be amended to limit the scope of Ministerial Instructions so the provisions cannot be used to terminate or significantly alter core immigration programs without legislative or regulatory processes. Require advance public notice, stakeholder consultation, and an Impact Assessment Statement (like in regulatory processes) before Ministerial Instructions are enacted. This would reinforce that binding legal instruments (such as program eligibility rules and applicant rights) must arise from legislation or regulation, not internal guidelines or policies. Require that any substantial change to immigration programs—especially those affecting antecedent rights—must pass through Parliamentary or regulatory scrutiny.
2.	Clarify and Constrain the Use of Public Policies IRPA, s. 25.2	Clarify and Constrain the Use of s. 25.2 Public Policies. Specifically, define "Public Policy" and "Ministerial Conditions" in the IRPA to prevent the creation of regulatory substitutes via ad hoc policies. Introduce a formalized process for the creation of public policies, including: A minimum notice period Public consultation Publication of eligibility rules in the Canada Gazette Legal reviewability based on principles of fairness and transparency.
3.	Creation of an Office of an independent Immigration Ombudsperson	Creation of an independent Immigration Ombudsperson reporting to Parliament, with a primary mandate to conduct systemic reviews, monitor fairness, and promote transparency and alignment with IRPA’s objectives. While the office may receive complaints, its focus should be on identifying trends and systemic concerns, not resolving individual cases. To be effective, the Ombudsperson must operate alongside improved decision-making and transparency measures that reduce reliance on post hoc oversight. The office would also support coordinated federal, provincial, and municipal engagement to reflect diverse regional needs.
4.	Embed a Rights Based Framework with the IRPA including a civil society-stakeholder advisory panel.	Embed a rights-based framework in the IRPA that mandates public reporting, impact assessments, and the creation of a civil society-stakeholder advisory panel to strengthen democratic participation and accountability in immigration policy development.
III. Embedding user experience into natural justice
5.	Recognize User Experience as a Core Legal Value	Explicitly incorporate user experience and accessibility into the legislative objectives of the IRPA, reflecting their centrality to fairness and the rule of law. Treat clarity, usability, and meaningful participation as essential components of natural justice.
6.	Modernize Forms and Communications Using Plain Language	Mandate a comprehensive review and revision of all immigration forms, notices, and correspondence using plain language principles. Design communications to be cross-culturally appropriate, multilingual, and easily understandable, particularly for unrepresented or vulnerable applicants. Avoid overly technical, legalistic, or multi-tiered questions and passive language that creates barriers to understanding. This will mitigate systemic fairness risks by requiring the review of processes that can result in disproportionate consequences for minor or honest errors, particularly under the IRPA’s s.40 misrepresentation provisions. It is essential to give applicants with clear guidance and opportunities to correct omissions or errors without automatic penalty to conserve resources, unnecessary enforcement and the fair application of the IRPA.
7.	Improve Real-Time Communication and File Transparency	Develop and expand interactive, user-centered digital platforms that offer: Full reasons for decisions Real-time status updates on application progress Notifications about missing documents or steps Secure two-way messaging with IRCC Grant applicants access to real-time file data in an intelligible format to reduce ATIP requests and resorting to the Federal Court and/or the IRB and increase system responsiveness.
8.	Applicant-Centric Technology	Alongside our recommendations below on the deployment of AI and ADM, implement guided application tools, virtual assistants, and live chat options to clarify application requirements. Maintain in-person support options for individuals without digital access or requiring accommodation. Clearly disclose when AI or automation is used in decision-making and provide explanations and recourse mechanisms, in line with international best practices.
9.	Eliminate the “Digital Stampede” Intake Models to Ensure Fair Access	Replace first-come, first-served digital intake models with equitable processes, and ensure fair access regardless of time zone, internet connectivity, or accessibility limitations. Intake systems must be designed to promote fairness, inclusion, and meaningful opportunity to apply.
10.	Establish Enforceable Service Standards - Service Fees Act	Extend the Service Fees Act to immigration programs to formalize service expectations. Introduce legislated, enforceable service standards within the IRPA to ensure timely, predictable, and fair processing. Require IRCC to publish performance metrics regularly, with explanations when targets are not met, enhancing transparency and public accountability.
11.	Establish a Formalized Procedural Fairness and Reconsideration Framework for Incomplete or Deficient Applications	Amend the IRPA and its regulations to require immigration officers to issue a formal notice of deficiency for incomplete or minor omissions, giving applicants a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency before a final refusal is issued. Standardize the reconsideration process with clear timelines, transparent criteria for accepting supplementary information, and a written reasons if a correction is deemed insufficient. This framework would promote fairness, consistency, and administrative efficiency while reducing unnecessary reapplications and delays in processing.
12.	Create a Standardized Urgent Processing, Withdrawal, Update and Revocation Mechanisms Across Immigration Streams	Amend the IRPA and its regulations to develop formal policy instructions requiring immigration officers to implement a clear, accessible process for requesting urgent consideration of immigration files, including transparent criteria, standardized request procedures, and service standards for decision-making. Similarly, applicants must be given a straightforward and timely process to withdraw applications where circumstances have materially changed, or to submit further documents in support of a pending application where there has been a change of circumstances. While the IRCC webform is currently offered as the appropriate tool to use for this purpose, users often face long delays, and often applications are decided without consideration of the new material. Similarly, regulations should be explored for standardizing the revocation of visas and permits including transparent criteria, standardized request procedures, and service standards for decision-making.
IV. A new framework for technology and AI/ADM in immigration decision-making
13.	IRPA/IRPR Amendments for AI and ADM Use	Introduce dedicated provisions within the IRPA to regulate the use of AI and ADM in immigration processes, anchored in binding principles of transparency, notice, accountability, human-in-the-loop review, regular audits and monitoring, robust training and ethical standards, and meaningful stakeholder engagement. These provisions should establish mechanisms for legal professionals, community groups, and subject matter experts to participate in the design, implementation, and review of AI systems. Amend the IRPR to operationalize these principles, including mandatory disclosures, AIAs, PIAs and enforceable redress mechanisms.
14.	Establish an independent AI Oversight Unit	Establish an independent AI Oversight Unit within IRCC responsible for compliance, audits, and public reporting, with external review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Auditor General, and civil society including stakeholder representatives like the CBA and reporting to Parliament.
15.	Require Coordination with TBS	Require IRCC to coordinate with TBS (for system design standards) and OPC (for privacy oversight), while retaining primary responsibility for sector-specific regulation given the unique nature of immigration decision-making.
16.	Mandate Annual Public Reporting, Third-Party Audits and a Grievance Mechanism	Mandate annual public reporting, third-party audits, and a formal grievance mechanism accessible to applicants and advocates. Consider a parliamentary review committee to periodically assess the framework’s operation and fairness.
17.	Codify a Statutory Right for Applicants	Codify a statutory right for applicants to request human review, receive intelligible reasons for automated decisions, and access the underlying logic or criteria behind system outputs.
V. Family reunification: repairing fragmented and discriminatory regimes
18.	Legislative Renewal for Family Reunification in Canada	Undertake a comprehensive review and reform of the legislative and regulatory framework governing family reunification. A modernized system must reflect the diversity of Canadian families, promote consistent and equitable decision-making, and remove barriers that disproportionately impact vulnerable applicants, including women, children, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, and racialized communities.
19.	Modernizing Spousal Sponsorship to Reflect Canada’s Relationship Realities	Consolidate the spousal categories under the IRPR to reduce unnecessary complexity and promote equal access to sponsorship for all forms of genuine partnerships. Clarify the rules for conjugal partnerships is essential to ensure they do not disadvantage applicants who cannot marry or cohabit for cultural, legal, or practical reasons, including those in same-sex relationships. The system should also offer culturally sensitive alternatives to marriage or cohabitation, without creating a formal fiancé class, to recognize diverse relationship forms.
20.	Ending Lifetime Sponsorship Bans: Aligning Immigration Policy with Human Realities - Repealing sections 117(9)(d) and 125(1)(d) of the IRPR	Repeal ss. 117(9)(d) and 125(1)(d) of the IRPR, which impose lifetime bans on the sponsorship of family members who were not declared and examined in the sponsor’s original immigration application. These provisions are inconsistent with the objective of family reunification and lead to disproportionately harsh outcomes.
21.	Restoring Officer Discretion to Address Exceptional Non-Disclosure Circumstances	Restore meaningful officer discretion to waive non-disclosure in exceptional cases, which can be achieved through s.117(9)(11), such as where family members are presumed dead, missing, or inaccessible due to trauma or conflict. Clear operational guidance is needed to support the use of this discretion, which is currently available but almost never exercised.
22.	Legal Recognition Beyond Formal Adoption: Inclusive Immigration Policy for Children in Kafalah and Similar Arrangements IRPR, s. 3(2)	Amend the definition of adoption in s. 3(2) of IRPR to permit the legal recognition of stable caregiving arrangements that do not sever ties with biological parents, such as those established through kafalah and similar practices. These should be assessed based on the best interests of the child, duration, and stability, rather than rigid legal formalities. Assessment of whether an adoption was undertaken for immigration purposes should be approached with cultural sensitivity and grounded in clear guidance to avoid bias.
23.	Allow Permanent Residents to Sponsor Regardless of Geographic Location IRPR, s. 130(2)	Amend s. 130(2) of the IRPR to allow permanent residents to sponsor a spouse or child while temporarily residing abroad, provided they can demonstrate both a genuine relationship and an intention to return to Canada. This amendment would prevent permanent residents from being forced to choose between maintaining their immigration status and preserving family unity.
24.	Restore Conjunctive Test IRPR, s. 4	Amend s. 4 of the IRPR to restore a conjunctive test for refusals based on bad faith, requiring that the relationship be both non-genuine and entered into primarily for immigration purposes. This change would ensure that legitimate relationships are not rejected solely because immigration was a factor, and would reduce speculative decision-making by officers and unnecessary appeal inventory at the Immigration Appeal Division.
25.	Amend to Allow the Removal of an Abusive Spouse IRPR, s. 119	Amend the IRPR to establish a clear and accessible process for applicants to remove an abusive spouse or partner from their application without requiring a formal legal separation or undue evidentiary burden. This could entail revising s. 119 to grant officers discretion to approve applications in cases involving intimate partner violence or coercion, even where a sponsor has withdrawn support. The expedited Family Violence Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) and H&C Process could be formally institutionalized by including them in the IRPR. These changes are necessary to protect the safety and immigration security of survivors.
26.	Expand the Family Class to Include Siblings	Amend the IRPA and the IRPR to expand the definition of the Family Class to include adult siblings of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, recognizing their role in family unity and integration. Create a flexible sibling sponsorship stream with eligibility criteria and differentiated pathways, including for economic, humanitarian, and regional priorities.
27.	Modernize Parent and Grandparent Sponsorship	Modernize the Parent and Grandparent Program by introducing multiple streams—such as income-tested, capital-tested, and compassion-based options—and allow for more inclusive definitions of “parent” and “grandparent” that reflect diverse family structures. Consider tiered entry models and targeted quotas to balance economic contribution with equitable access and regional representation, and prevent the unfairness caused by a “digital stampede”.
28.	Introduce a Regulatory Definition of “Family Size” and Developing an MNI Calculator IRPR, s. 2	Introduce a regulatory definition of “family size” in the context of the IRPR s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) that a) specifies when a dependent is to be counted for income purposes (e.g., based on actual presence during the year); b) clarifies how births, deaths, or departures during the relevant period affect the family size total. Introduce a regulatory definition of “family size” in the context of IRPR s.133(1)(j)(i)(B) that: Specify when a dependent is to be counted for income purposes (e.g., based on actual presence during the year). Clarify how births, deaths, or departures during the relevant period affect the family size total. Amend the IRPR or program delivery instructions to allow for pro-rated MNI calculations based on the number of days a dependent is part of the sponsor’s family unit during the relevant taxation year. This approach would prevent penalizing sponsors for late-year births or early-year deaths. Allow for a more accurate and compassionate assessment of income sufficiency.
29.	Develop MNI Calculator	Develop a template tool or calculator to help sponsors estimate MNI obligations based on dynamic family size changes during the year. Allow for reconsideration or clarification requests where a MNI refusal is based on unexpected or inconsistently applied family size assumptions.
VI. Refugee protection: consolidation, coherence, and compassion
30.	Remove 12-Month Bar IRPA, s. 25(1.2)	Remove the bar that prohibits refugee claimants from applying for H&C relief for 12 months after their refugee claim is withdrawn or refused
31.	Centralize all Refugee Status Determinations	Centralize all refugee status determinations—both inland and overseas—under a single, independent authority within the IRB. This structural reform would eliminate duplication and fragmentation, ensure access to oral hearings where appropriate, and standardize evidentiary and procedural rules across all protection pathways. It would also address the double standard in assessing third-country “durable solutions” between inland and overseas applicants.
32.	Assign all Risk-based Assessments under Extended Protection Grounds	Assign all risk-based assessments under extended protection grounds—such as risks to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment—to the IRB. Consolidating these decisions under a transparent and procedurally robust model would improve consistency, reduce confusion caused by overlapping processes, and reinforce Canada’s international obligations under human rights law.
33.	Public Consultation and Proactive Disclosure of all Refugee-Related Policy Instruments	Subject all refugee-related policy instruments—especially those affecting eligibility, exemptions, and procedural rights—to public consultation and proactive disclosure. Policies that guide life-altering decisions must be transparent, legally accountable, and informed by regular engagement with legal professionals, service providers, and affected communities.
34.	Amendments to Cessation and Vacation Processes IRPA, ss. 40.1 and 108	Amend s. 40.1 and 108 of the IRPA to establish clear legislative and procedural fairness criteria, including a requirement that those subject to a cessation application be given an opportunity to respond before protected status is revoked. Officers should be required to consider the context and intent of the individual’s actions, and apply the principle of proportionality to avoid harsh outcomes for minor or compassionate return visits. Guidelines should direct officers to issue a notice to appear rather than conduct cessation interviews at ports of entry. Status should only be lost where there is clear evidence of fraud, bad faith, or a fundamental change in protection needs, consistent with Canada’s legal and humanitarian obligations.
35.	Issue TRPs to Dependents of Protected Persons to Facilitate Timely Reunification	Initially, issue Ministerial Instructions to authorize the routine issuance of TRPs under s. 24 of the IRPA to dependents of Protected Persons seeking permanent residence.
36.	Regulatory Amendment for TRPs to Dependents of Protected Persons to Facilitate Timely Reunification	To ensure greater consistency, transparency, and durability of the practice listed as recommendation 34 above, the authority for routine TRP issuance should be incorporated into the IRPR through a permanent regulatory amendment.
37.	Permit Work, Study, and Health Access for TRP Holders in this Context	Structure TRP issuance to permit accompanying dependents to reside in Canada with access to work or study permits and provincial health coverage while their permanent residence applications are processed. This ensures continuity of care and reduces vulnerability.
38.	Establish Transparent TRP Issuance Guidelines for Dependents of Protected Persons	Develop clear, publicly available guidelines for TRP issuance in these cases to ensure procedural transparency and alignment with international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Monitor processing times for dependents of Protected Persons and implement corrective measures to reduce excessive delays, minimize harm, and avoid unnecessary judicial review proceedings. This includes setting processing benchmarks and ensuring timely follow-up.
39.	Improve Access to Refugee Travel Documentation.	Automatically issue refugee travel documents following a successful Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision, or provide clear, timely, and multilingual advisories informing successful claimants of their obligations and the legal risks of obtaining documents from their country of origin. Reduce barriers to permanent residence for refugees by preventing unintentional cessation or inadmissibility due to lack of information.
40.	Broader Admissibility of Corroborating Evidence at the Refugee Appeal Division IRPA, s. 110(4)	Amend the IRPA at s.110(4) to allow broader admissibility of corroborating evidence at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), even if such evidence could have been reasonably available at the time of the original claim. Claimants relying on the presumption of credibility may not foresee the need for corroboration until after credibility is challenged at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The proposed legislative revision would remove or revise the clause preventing admission of evidence that “could reasonably have been expected to have been presented” at the initial hearing. The appeal system should function as a true error-correction mechanism, not a gatekeeping body punishing unanticipated gaps in record-building.
41.	Formalizing Non-Convention Risk in H&C Applications IRPA, s. 25	Add a regulation accompanied by detailed operational policy outlining the types of risks that fall outside the Convention refugee and extended protection definitions but may be legitimately considered under s.25 H&C grounds. Examples may include gender-based violence not rising to the Convention definition; Risks from state collapse, famine, or natural disasters; Particular vulnerability of stateless persons or LGBTQ+ persons in non-criminalized but still hostile environments; Threats arising from organized crime in regions where the state is unwilling or unable to offer protection.
42.	Integrating a Non-Protection Risk Framework into H&C Decision-Making, and Engendering Consistency in Humanitarian Policy Offerings	Incorporate a “non-protection risk framework” into H&C decision-making, ensuring that officers are reminded of their discretion to consider serious harm outside the protection regime. Similarly, ensure that public policy initiatives aimed at responding to humanitarian crises are developed in a transparent and consistent manner.
VII. Admissibility and inadmissibility: narrowing and clarifying enforcement provisions
43.	Revisit Proportionality of Inadmissibility Framework	Canada’s inadmissibility framework should be proportionate, context-sensitive, and rooted in fairness. Current provisions are overly broad, inconsistently applied, and in some cases, incompatible with basic principles of justice and legal security. Reform is needed to align inadmissibility rules with the values of a modern, rights-respecting immigration system.
44.	Due Process in Inadmissibility Decisions: Ensuring Evidence Disclosure and Reviewability	Codify the right of applicants to receive and respond to the evidence underlying inadmissibility decisions, with limited exceptions for narrowly defined national security concerns. Apply a consistent standard of “credible and reliable evidence” across all cases. Require written reasons and ensure access to meaningful review mechanisms to promote transparency and accountability.
45.	Clarifying Security-Based Inadmissibility: From Association to Accountability IRPA, ss. 33–35	Revise ss. 33 to 35 to ensure clearer definitions and higher thresholds for inadmissibility on security and terrorism grounds. Inadmissibility should require evidence of personal involvement in serious conduct, not mere association or political expression. The standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” should be narrowed, and procedures must allow for meaningful disclosure and response. Definitions must align with international human rights law and Canadian constitutional standards. For example, define “inadmissibility on security grounds” to require active and personal involvement in serious acts. Exclude inadmissibility findings based solely on political expression, membership alone, or historical affiliation without intent. Raise the evidentiary threshold from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “clear and convincing evidence” in cases involving prolonged bans or removals. Align definitions and procedures with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
46.	Restore Procedural Safeguards and Relief Mechanisms IRPA, ss. 35(1), 42.1, 55 and 58	Reinstate the right to apply for Ministerial relief under the IRPA s.42.1 for individuals found inadmissible under s.35(1)(c). Restore access to the Immigration Division and Immigration Appeal Division for foreign nationals and their family members subject to sanctions-based inadmissibility. Introduce judicial or quasi-judicial review options for individuals impacted by sanctions-based inadmissibility or detention under sections 55 and 58. Ensure detention grounds based on sanctions (under the IRPA ss.55(3)(b) and 58(1)(c)) are used only in clearly defined, high-risk circumstances.
47.	Revisit Criteria for Assessing Foreign Convictions IRPA, s. 36	Introduce clearer criteria for assessing foreign convictions, including an evaluation of the legal system where the conviction occurred, the availability of pardons, and the proportionality of the conduct. If an offence proceeded summarily by Canadian standards, it should not be deemed indictable. Consideration should be given to rehabilitation, humanitarian factors, length of time in Canada, and family ties. Permanent residents should not face automatic removal or subject to more serious removal proceedings for dated or minor convictions, especially when the offence would not carry the same weight under Canadian law.
48.	Proportionality and Individualization in the Application IRPA, ss. 37 and 42	Amend s. 37 to differentiate between core actors and individuals with marginal or coerced involvement in organized crime. Require evidence of intent or meaningful participation. Limit s. 42 (guilt by association) to exceptional cases where a clear connection exists between the applicant’s actions and the inadmissibility of their relative. Innocent family members should not be penalized for conduct beyond their control.
49.	Toward a Broader, Fairer Interpretation IRPA, s. 39	A reasonable and lawful interpretation of s. 39 must include money from all sources, not only earned income or liquid assets. This includes: Spousal support or shared household income Private sponsorship commitments (in refugee or family reunification cases) Financial help from extended family or community networks Support in kind (e.g., housing, food, caregiving) This approach ensures that inadmissibility is not imposed unfairly on those who, while not independently wealthy, have reliable support structures in place. This change would require an update to internal guidelines and officer training to ensure that all forms of support—including non-traditional or family-based resources—are meaningfully considered in financial inadmissibility determinations under s. 39. This promotes a fairer and evidence-based approach to immigration assessment and appeals.
50.	Adopt a Proportionate and Transparent Framework for Addressing Misrepresentation	Reform s. 40 of the IRPA to establish a fair and graduated approach to findings of misrepresentation. The current binary model—which applies the same penalty regardless of intent, impact, or context—should be replaced with a sliding scale framework that distinguishes between technical errors, negligence, and deliberate fraud. Tailored consequences should be available, ranging from corrective action to inadmissibility findings, with the most serious penalties reserved for clear misconduct. Officers should be required to classify the type of non-compliance, provide written reasons, and consider statutory or regulatory factors such as intent, materiality, vulnerability, past compliance, and efforts to correct the issue. For first-time or minor infractions, a “notice to remedy” mechanism should be implemented to encourage compliance without immediate penalty. Section 40.1 should also be amended to ensure that cessation does not result in inadmissibility unless there is clear evidence of bad faith. IRCC and CBSA should publish guidance and anonymized decision summaries to enhance transparency, consistency, and public trust in the integrity of the immigration system.
51.	Eliminate the Automatic Six-Month Sentence Bar IRPA, s. 64(2)	Remove the rigid appeal bar based solely on a six-month sentence to allow for individualized assessments that consider mitigating factors.
52.	Introduce a Formalized Risk and Proportionality Assessment at the s. 44 Stage	Require CBSA officers to evaluate the seriousness of the inadmissibility, the individual's ties to Canada, rehabilitation efforts, and humanitarian considerations when initiating enforcement proceedings. Categorize cases based on risk level (e.g., serious criminality, technical violations, humanitarian factors) to guide appropriate enforcement or alternative measures.
53.	Develop a Centralized Tracking and Monitoring System for s. 44 Reports	Create a case management system to track decisions and outcomes, ensuring transparency, consistency, and accountability in removal actions. Require supervisory oversight for all s. 44 reports involving long-term residents, individuals with Canadian citizen family members, or cases raising Charter or international human rights concerns.
54.	Introducing Fixed Referral Periods and Delay Assessment Mechanisms	Introduce a fixed period (e.g., 24 months) within which CBSA must initiate a s. 44 report following a criminal conviction, barring exceptional circumstances. After this period, removal proceedings would require justification and Ministerial authorization. Amend the IRPR to require that all enforcement actions under s.44 demonstrate timeliness, with decision-makers required to assess delay and its justification before referral.
55.	Support Public Confidence Through Transparent, Case-by-Case Decision-Making	Reinforce a system that demonstrates proportionality and fairness, aligning with Canada's human rights obligations and maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. Ensure that truly serious offenders are removed swiftly, and restore a vital mechanism for achieving just, proportionate results in immigration decisions. It is a change that would reinforce public safety while reasserting Canada’s commitment to fairness and rehabilitation – values that define the country’s legal tradition as much as the need to protect the public does.
56.	Define “Sanctions” in the IRPA and IRPR IRPA, s. 2, and IRPR. s. 2	Define “Sanctions” in the IRPA and IRPR and amend the IRPA and IRPR to include a clear legal definition of “sanctions”, specifying: Which legislative instruments are recognized (e.g., SEMA, Magnitsky Act); Whether sanctions must target individuals or entities directly; How sanctions interact with immigration status for both primary applicants and their family Clarify whether inadmissibility should apply: Only where the sanctioned party is personally involved in conduct violating human or international rights; or also in cases of purely economic/geopolitical sanctions with no demonstrated personal wrongdoing. Provide legal guidance on the treatment of pending sanctions or investigations in immigration decision-making and codify thresholds or tests for assessing individual culpability distinct from state-based actions.
57.	Address Unintended Consequences for Dependents, Sponsors and Refugees IRPA, ss.42(a) and 42(b)	Amend the IRPA ss.42(a) and 42(b) to limit the blanket inadmissibility of dependents and family members in cases of sanctions. Introduce exemptions or discretion where family members are not directly complicit in the conduct leading to the sanctions. Provide clear guidance and procedural protections for naturalized citizens and permanent residents seeking to sponsor family members who may be indirectly affected. Require that IRCC publish guidelines on which sanctions lead to inadmissibility and under what conditions. Enact a legislative amendment providing that Recognition as a refugee by Canada automatically results in delisting from Canadian sanctions lists for immigration purposes. This ensures immediate access to resettlement, permanent residency, and integration services without further barriers. Confirm and protect access to refugee claims and PRRA for all persons affected by sanctions but not implicated in personal wrongdoing.
58.	Harmonization Regarding Sanctions Across Related Legislation	Ensure Legislative Harmony Across Acts: Clarify the application of “sanctions” under s.10.1(4) of the Citizenship Act, particularly in relation to revocation of citizenship. Align Citizenship Act s.10.5(1) and s.10.1(4) to ensure internal coherence regarding which grounds can justify revocation. Provide explicit definitions or cross-references in the Emergencies Act to ensure that removal provisions based on sanctions do not conflict with Charter protections or refugee rights.
59.	Sanction Remedial Process	Implement an independent administrative process for individuals to challenge their sanctions designation, consistent with Recommendation 8 of the 2017 Standing Committee report.
VIII. Building a fair and future-ready immigration system
60.	Implementing Systemic Measures to Streamline Immigration Processing and Ensure Fairness	Introduce systemic measures to address processing backlogs and delays, including transparent intake mechanisms, predictable timelines, and real-time case status updates. Programs like the Parents and Grandparents sponsorship stream should be reformed to reflect the seriousness of family reunification, with clear criteria and stable, long-term planning. Automated triage systems must operate under publicly disclosed criteria, with performance monitoring and audit trails to ensure fairness and accountability.
61.	Establish Clear Service Standards for the Processing of PRTDs	Establish clear service standards for the processing of PRTDs, including expedited pathways for urgent or humanitarian cases. Communication must be improved through timely updates, accessible status checks, and decision letters that include clear, plain-language reasons and next steps. Clear service standards are essential to ensure that overseas permanent residents are not left in legal or practical limbo due to prolonged processing times or lack of communication.
62.	Enhancing Immigration Decision-Making Through Comprehensive Officer Training	Develop a national training framework for immigration officers, modelled on best practices such as Australia’s College of Immigration Officers. Core training should include plain-language writing, trauma-informed interviewing, cultural competence, and principles of procedural fairness. Specialized instruction should support consistent and principled assessment of credibility, discretion, and risk across all decision-makers.
63.	Implementing Robust Auditing and Reporting Mechanisms in Immigration Systems	As noted above, enforce service standards under the Service Fees Act and mandate regular public reporting on processing performance, disaggregated by stream, region, and decision point. Implement rolling performance audits to identify delays, assess disparities, and improve consistency. ADM tools must include built-in audit functions, external oversight, and access to data for independent review. Stakeholder engagement—including regular consultation with legal professionals and civil society—should be embedded in operational policy development.
64.	Harnessing Data Analytics for Equitable and Evidence-Based Decision-Making	Expand the use of data analytics to support equitable and evidence-based decision-making, while ensuring safeguards for privacy, transparency, and accountability. Data must be reviewed regularly to detect and correct systemic bias, and to track applicant experiences by region, stream, and demographic group. Use analytics to identify process bottlenecks, inform training needs, and support more responsive and inclusive service design.
65.	Implementing Systemic Measures to Streamline Immigration Processing and Ensure Fairness IRPR, s. 186(u) and 182	Remove “if they have remained in Canada after the expiry of their work permit” and amend s.182 to enable work or study during processing of an application for restoration that was filed in a timely way. We recommend consideration of a bridging permit model, similar to that used in Australia, to support continuity of status and reduce disruption for workers and students.
66.	Establish a Transparent Process for Setting Intake Caps and Managing Queues	Adopt a clear and accountable process for setting or adjusting caps across temporary resident streams. This should include advance public notice, justification for caps, time-limited implementation, and periodic review to ensure relevance and fairness.
67.	Ensure Communication of Application Consequences Once Caps Are Met	Clearly communicate to applicants that applications submitted after a cap is reached may not be accepted or processed. This is particularly important for time-sensitive categories such as temporary resident visas (TRVs).
68.	Engage Stakeholders and Monitor Impacts of Intake Management Measures	Conduct regular consultation with legal and community stakeholders when setting caps or pausing intake. Report publicly on the rationale, impact, and effectiveness of intake management tools to promote accountability and continuous improvement.
69.	Removing Unnecessary Barriers: Enabling Mobility for Workers and Students	Amend the IRPR regulations and operational guidance to: Allow temporary workers in Canada to begin work with a new employer upon submission of a new employer-specific LMIA-based application and issuance of an Acknowledgment of Receipt. Permit international students to begin studies at a new Designated Learning Institution upon filing a change of school notification, without needing prior issuance of a new study permit.
70.	Protecting Workers, Encouraging Accountability: Reforming Employer Sanctions Under the IRPR	Recommend the implementation of a fairer employer sanction framework that does not penalize applicants for the conduct of others. A feature would include establishing a formal self-reporting and remediation framework under the IRPR that: Allows applicants and employers to voluntarily disclose and correct errors or non-compliance (e.g., minor misrepresentations or document omissions) before punitive action is taken. Creates space for restorative outcomes—such as compliance agreements or conditional approvals—instead of automatic inadmissibility or bans. Clarifies that workers will not be penalized for employer violations, provided they were unaware or unable to control the non-compliance. Ensures that employer sanctions are proportionate, targeted, and focused on deliberate and systemic misconduct, not good-faith errors.
71.	Define Eligibility and Selection Factors in the Regulations IRPA, ss. 11, s.20 and 220	One potential concept is to define eligibility and selection factors in the regulations, aligned with s.11 of the IRPA (application requirements) and s.20 of the IRPA (requirements for temporary residents), including academic history, language proficiency, financial sufficiency and labour market alignment and regional demand
72.	Amend the IRPR to Authorize an EOI System for Temporary Entry IRPR, ss. 10.1-10.3, s.20, s.25.2, s.87.3, s.207, s. 211.1, 216(1)	Thought given to modelling study permits and TRVs after s.10.1 of the IRPR (already used for Express Entry). New provisions in the IRPR Part 9 (Temporary Residents), modeled on s.10.1 of the IRPR and adapted for visitor and study permit classes. Amend IRPR to include performance-based allocation criteria for Designated Learning Institutions: Based on outcomes, compliance (IRPR s.211.1), and capacity to support international students. Enable AI-supported triage and intake systems, with human oversight, through new provisions in the IRPR s.10.1–10.3 (mirroring Express Entry’s system functionality for TRV and International Student Program streams).
73.	New Municipal Level Agreements	Amend the IRPA to explicitly authorize the Minister to enter agreements with municipalities to support education-based immigration and integration pathways.
74.	New Pathways for Study Permits	Create new regulatory study permit classes under Part 9 of the IRPR: “In-Demand Occupations Study Permit Class” – tied to Canada’s National Occupation Classification, Separate “College Stream” and “University Stream” – allowing tailored eligibility standards under s.216(1) of the IRPR, “Municipal Nominee Study Stream” – similar in structure to s.87.3 of the IRPR (PNPs), “Humanitarian Study Permit Class” – amend the IRPR to include public policy considerations under s.25.2 of the IRPA and s.207 of the IRPR.
75.	New Pathways for TRVs	Amend s.179 of the IRPR (issuance of TRVs) to introduce purpose-based TRV categories: Humanitarian/Urgent Travel TRVs, Family TRVs, Business TRVs, Tourist TRVs
76.	Minimize Duplication and Complexity in Express Entry Point Systems	The CRS criteria be defined in the IRPR. This would enhance transparency, consistency, and legal certainty in permanent residence selection. IRCC should move to a single points-based assessment system across all Express Entry pathways. Specifically: Eliminate the need to calculate program-specific points (e.g., FSW grid) for Express Entry selection purposes. Use a unified CRS-based model as the sole determinant of candidate ranking and eligibility across EE programs. Retain basic eligibility criteria (age, language, work experience) per stream, but remove redundant numeric thresholds. Example of Proposed Simplification: Current System Recommended Reform FSW: 67-point threshold + CRS Eliminate 67-point threshold PNP: Nominee eligibility + CRS Use CRS only for ranking CEC: Eligibility + CRS Maintain as-is CRS: Common to all Retain and codify in regulations
77.	Investor Pathway	Introduce a Residency-by-Investment Program with options for passive investments in: 1) regional development funds, 2) green infrastructure, or 3) Canadian venture capital. Tiered investment levels ($500K–$2M) could correspond to expedited processing or eligibility for family members.
78.	Entrepreneur Pathway	Create a Federal Entrepreneur Visa separate from the Start-Up Visa, for applicants who: 1) have business ownership/management experience, 2) propose to acquire or expand a Canadian business, or 3) engage in rural/small community economic projects.
79.	Features of Potential Modernized Business Programs	Launch a targeted program for immigrants to acquire and operate existing Canadian SMEs facing closure due to retirement. Match applicants with businesses through a government-supported portal. Provide immigration bonus points, expedited PR pathways, or financial incentives for investments or businesses located in: 1) rural or remote areas, 2) regions with labour shortages, or 3) low-population-growth areas. Require audited net worth disclosures, source of funds verification, and third-party business validation to ensure program integrity. Establish performance-based criteria for PR (e.g. business success, job creation). Create a Federal Business Immigration Council to coordinate with provinces, regional development agencies, and private sector stakeholders. Align immigration with economic development goals. Implement regular program reviews and publish performance metrics (e.g. investment amounts, retention rates, economic impact). Sunset underperforming pilots and scale effective models. Fund dedicated services for immigrant entrepreneurs, including mentorship, language training, access to financing, and regulatory guidance tailored to newcomers.
80.	Self-Employed Program and Business Immigration Reform	Reinstate the Self-Employed Program with reforms that ensure it supports Canada's economic development mandate, while maintaining accessibility for world-class talent in non-traditional fields: Raise the financial assessment threshold to reflect a greater emphasis on economic stimulation and sustainability post-arrival. Introduce a registration and ranking system, akin to Express Entry, to allow IRCC to control inventory through targeted Invitations to Apply. Introduce a revised points-based selection mechanism for Self-Employed Program candidates, tailored to measure: Economic readiness (funds available, income history) Cultural or athletic achievement (national/international impact) Language ability and integration potential Contribution to local/regional economic development
81.	Introduce Multi-Phase Backlog Reduction Strategy	IRCC should implement a multi-phase backlog reduction strategy, including: Public transparency: Release updated processing timelines and inventory statistics. Voluntary program redirection: Offer eligible candidates the opportunity to withdraw or transfer into restructured pathways (e.g., entrepreneur pilot programs). Dedicated processing units: Establish specialized teams within IRCC to expedite resolution of backlogged business immigration files.
82.	Out of Status Worker Regularization Programs	Leveraging the lessons of past regularization efforts, any future out-of-status programs should balance humanitarian, economic, and rule-of-law objectives—allowing non-status individuals to step forward without fear, contribute fully, and, where appropriate, transition to full legal status.
83.	Protect and Affirm the Right to Counsel in Immigration Law as a Constitutional Guarantee	IRCC should formally recognize and promote the constitutional right to counsel in all immigration and refugee proceedings, and advocate for legislative reform that enshrines this right in the IRPA.
84.	Administrative Monetary Penalties Cannot Apply to Lawyers	IRCC must amend its Administrative Monetary Penalty policy framework to include a categorical exemption for lawyers, recognizing their existing professional discipline regimes.
85.	Public messaging Re Lawyers	To strengthen the rule of law, increase system efficiency, and foster greater public confidence in the Canadian immigration process, IRCC should take concrete steps to formally recognize and integrate immigration lawyers into its service delivery, policy development, and public messaging strategies. The role of lawyers should be clearly acknowledged and respected in all administrative processes before IRCC. This includes formal recognition in file intake, correspondence handling, procedural fairness letters, status inquiries, interview scheduling, and post-decision communication. Officers and decision-makers should be trained to understand the legal and ethical duties of counsel and to treat representatives as essential participants in the administrative justice process—not simply as third parties. Additionally, IRCC should collect and publish anonymized data to assess the impact of authorized representation on application quality, system efficiency, and outcomes. By elevating the role of lawyers from external actors to collaborative partners, IRCC will strengthen both the integrity and effectiveness of its immigration programs. Ensuring their full participation in administrative processes will reduce errors, miscommunications, and delays, while reaffirming Canada’s commitment to a fair, transparent, and professionally accountable immigration system.
86.	Securing Lawyer Access and Communication in Immigration Program Modernization	Lawyers should be meaningfully involved in the development and rollout of new programs, pilot initiatives, and digital platforms. IRCC’s digital infrastructure must also be improved to ensure that lawyers have secure, continuous access to application systems, receive real-time updates, and are fully integrated into communications with clients.
87.	Regulate and Transparently Integrate AI and ADM at the IRB	As the IRB transitions into a digital tribunal, it must enshrine clear safeguards in its Rules to address the expanding use of AI and ADM. While digital modernization can improve efficiency and access, it also carries significant risks of bias, discrimination, and e-marginalization. To prevent the misuse of generative AI tools in submissions and evidence, the IRB should adopt a mandatory AI disclosure rule, similar to the Federal Court’s AI Notice, which requires disclosure where AI is used to “create” pleadings or evidence. This promotes transparency and reinforces procedural integrity, while allowing non-essential administrative technologies to remain outside the scope of the rule. The IRB Rules must also require AIAs, privacy assessments, and disclosure of decision-making frameworks when AI tools are deployed in triage, scheduling, or any aspect of adjudication.
88.	Maintain Human-Centric Alternatives and Prevent the Digital Divide	The IRB must commit to maintaining non-digital access to justice options within its new Rules. Many claimants and appellants—particularly the self-represented, elderly, low-income, or recent arrivals—may lack reliable access to internet, devices, or digital literacy. Ensuring fairness requires that all parties retain the ability to engage with the IRB through non-digital means where needed. In parallel, the IRB should ensure all communications, forms, and procedural instructions are provided in plain language, with multilingual availability and accessible formats, to support understanding and meaningful participation across a diverse applicant base.
89.	Modernize and Consolidate Stand Alone Immigration-Related Rules in the Federal Court	The Federal Court’s increasing immigration caseload highlights the need for modernized, streamlined, and sector-specific rules. A review of the interaction between the Federal Courts Rules and the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules is timely and necessary. IRCC and the Department of Justice should support the creation of a subcommittee on immigration procedure reform to assess whether a standalone, consolidated set of Immigration Rules—would reduce complexity and improve access to justice. In doing so, the Court can respond nimbly to rising case volumes and technological realities.
90.	Support Sustainable Resourcing and Simplified Filing Structures in the Federal Court and New Timeline	To maintain the efficiency and independence of the Federal Court amidst growing demand and digital transformation, IRCC should support measures that strengthen the Court’s capacity. Specifically, we recommend that the filing fee for Federal Court immigration matters be doubled, with the surplus directed exclusively to resourcing the Court through the general fund or new measures.
91.	Standardized Deadline for Filing Leave Applications	The filing deadline for applications for leave and judicial review should be standardized at 60 days, regardless of origin, to reduce confusion and streamline applicant compliance. These changes will help balance the increased access to legal remedies made possible by automation with the institutional capacity needed to deliver timely, reasoned justice.
92.	Establish a Centralized Immigration Legal and Policy Database	IRCC should develop and maintain a single digital platform that consolidates immigration legislation (IRPA, IRPR), Ministerial Instructions, Program Delivery Instructions, operational bulletins, policy manuals, forms, and other guidance materials. This system should be updated in real time and reflect both current and archived versions for historical reference. Ensure the Platform Is Searchable, Accessible, and Professionally Managed The database should include an advanced search engine, hyperlinks between related documents (e.g., connecting legislative sections to corresponding policy), and built-in version tracking. Management should fall under a dedicated IRCC unit to ensure oversight, regular updates, and technical maintenance. Canada should draw on the successful Legend.com platform used by the Australian Department of Home Affairs, which provides subscription-based access to a centralized immigration legal database. Canadian adaptation should maintain both public and licensed access tiers, to support transparency and professional use.
93.	Include Authorized Representative Access and Participation	Authorized representatives should be given full access to the platform to enhance the quality of representation, reduce avoidable errors, and foster greater consistency in application preparation and interpretation of evolving policy.
94.	Support Open Government Principles by Publishing Disclosable Internal Policy	Where operational instructions and internal guidance are disclosable under current privacy and access-to-information frameworks, they should be included in the database. Transparency in decision-making supports procedural fairness, reduces litigation, access to information requests and upholds Canada’s reputation for rule-of-law immigration governance.
IX. Shared jurisdiction and whole-of-government collaboration
95.	Building a Multilateral Immigration Strategy	Amend the IRPA to include provisions mandating structured FPT and municipal collaboration on immigration policy, program design, data sharing, and long-term planning. Legislative recognition of municipalities and civil society organizations as key stakeholders, including formal consultation and policy implementation roles must be added.
96.	Institutionalizing FPT and Municipal Partnerships	Establish mechanisms for inclusive, multilateral immigration strategy development involving federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, municipal, and civil society actors.
97.	Honouring the Jay Treaty: Legislating Indigenous Cross-Border Mobility, IRPA, s. 19	Amend s. 19 to explicitly affirm cross-border mobility rights of Indigenous peoples, referencing the Jay Treaty and developed in consultation with Indigenous governments.
98.	Strengthening Credential Recognition Systems with Federal-Provincial Collaboration	Mandate federal leadership in convening professional regulatory bodies to support transparent and timely credential recognition through formal FPT agreements.
99.	Establish a National Immigration Data Strategy	Mandate the creation of a coordinated FPT immigration data strategy to ensure timely, consistent, and disaggregated data collection, sharing, and reporting. This would support evidence-based policy development, improve program responsiveness, and enhance transparency across all levels of government.
100.	Embed Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Principles in Immigration Governance	Amend the IRPA to require that immigration policies, program development, and decision-making frameworks incorporate Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion considerations. This includes formal mechanisms for consulting historically marginalized communities and ensuring that immigration systems proactively address systemic barriers.

End Notes