Via email: CIMM@parl.gc.ca
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM)
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Committee Members:
Re: Follow-up submission regarding Bill C-12
Thank you for inviting our section to appear before you in your study on Bill C-12.
The CBA is a national association representing 40,000 members, including lawyers, judges, notaries, academics, and law students, with a 120-year-old mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA Immigration Law Section comprises over 1000 lawyers, practising in all aspects of immigration, refugee, and citizenship law, and rendering professional advice and representation in the Canadian immigration system to clients in Canada and abroad.
Following our appearance, several committee members encouraged us to submit a supplementary brief, noting there is a strong mandate to move forward quickly with an amended version of the bill before it proceeds to SECU next week and enters clause-by-clause consideration. We were advised there is (multi-party) interest in our opinion on how amendments might be crafted to mitigate the constitutional vulnerabilities and litigation risks we identified. These concerns, if realized, would have a significant downstream impact on our already overburdened Federal Court.
We heard, in particular, that there was openness to carving out exceptions to:
- the proposed one-year bar on eligibility to make a refugee claim under s. 73., and
- the proposed broad cancellation powers conferred on the Minister under s. 72(mass-cancellation provisions).
After careful internal consultation, we have concluded that minor amendments or carve-outs cannot meaningfully address the broader public-policy concerns raised in our original brief and in our oral testimony, for the reasons set out below:
1. The one-year bar
Fundamentally, we disagree with the proposal to divert cases away from our expert tribunal—the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)—into the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) process.
IRCC already faces considerable backlogs across all processing streams, particularly since the workforce readjustment. Updated processing service standards recently posted on the IRCC website (up to 99 months for certain types of applications) raises serious doubts that the proposed changes are even capable of achieving the intended efficiencies.1 More importantly, they would significantly erode the procedural protections owed to all.
It is common for a genuine risk of persecution to arise more than one year after a person arrives in Canada, for example due to changes in country conditions, trauma, mental health or an evolving understanding of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Similarly, there are individuals who initially pursue another pathway to permanent residence but later face risk, such as a woman sponsored by a Canadian spouse who must leave that relationship due to violence.
However, it is impossible to carve out these sur place claims via statutory language, because individualized assessments are required to establish whether a specific change gives rise to a persecutory environment on the facts of that case. Establishing exemption categories would necessitate a separate adjudicative proceeding to determine whether the exemption is warranted on grounds of, for example, gender-based violence (GBV). This would add another layer of screening—one to assess eligibility and another to assess the merits—which diminishes rather than improves efficiency and risks further entrenching backlogs.
If fraud prevention is the true goal of Bill C-12, the Minister already has the power to intervene under IRPA s. 170.2, to challenge credibility or bona fides of a claim. There is no justification for removing such cases from the RPD framework entirely. The solution lies in capacity-building within the existing tribunal system and improving triage and efficiency mechanisms, not in creating categorical, non-evidence-based barriers to access.
We support the proposal to establish a Designated Representative (DR) scheme for vulnerable individuals in non-IRB proceedings. We, however, disagree that the provisions should confer broader substitute decision-making powers than those available under the IRB without corresponding oversight or accountability mechanisms. This risks exacerbating the very harms it seeks to prevent, especially for those unable to understand or challenge the nature of decisions made on their behalf.
2. The mass-cancellation powers
We also remain opposed to the mass-cancellation provisions in proposed s. 72., which authorize the Governor in Council to cancel classes of visas, permits or authorizations by order. Such measures remove policy-shaping decisions from public oversight and parliamentary scrutiny. Unlike regulatory amendments, orders-in-council are made within Cabinet, shielded from debate and transparency, contrary to the objectives of public confidence, accountability and stability that this legislation should promote.
The concept of “public interest” invoked in this context is so indeterminate as to be incapable of meaningful constraint. It effectively grants open-ended discretion to the Minister, raising serious rule-of-law concerns. Moreover, fraud cannot be responsibly addressed through blanket cancellations, which are inherently reductive, and create hardship for unimpugned applicants. Effective integrity measures must be narrowly tailored to specific, demonstrable instances of wrongdoing, not mere generalizations.
3. Conclusion
In short, we do not support Bill C-12 in its current form, including several other sections not addressed in this brief due to space constraints. We ask the Committee to pause consideration of the Bill and undertake further study and its broader policy direction. Strengthening existing mechanisms, improving efficiency and oversight within the current IRPA framework, and preserving the rights and procedural protections central to Canada’s immigration system should remain the guiding objective. We would gladly welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the Committee in this work.
Respectfully submitted,
(original letter signed by Yves Faguy on behalf of Jatin Shory)
Jatin Shory
Chair, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association