Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association calls Bill C-12 profound threat to human rights obligations
As federal lawmakers prepare for a sweeping new immigration bill, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association is sounding the alarm over what it describes as a profound threat to parliamentary scrutiny, administrative law, and Canada’s human-rights obligations.
Pantea Jafari, founder and lead counsel at Jafari Law, and a member of CILA's Bill C-12 committee, which is studying the legislation, says the bill represents an unprecedented consolidation of executive power – one that could reshape immigration decision-making for years to come.
“We believe the Charter applies broadly – not only to citizens, but also to people with temporary or permanent status, and even to applicants seeking such status,” Jafari, who uses they/them pronouns, says. “There are sections of the bill that might be encroaching on Charter-compliance issues, especially when you consider the removal of parliamentary scrutiny from the powers being provided.
“The bill aims to integrate immigration processing and decision-making into a national security framework, potentially resulting in an overreach of Public Safety Canada’s statutory role. It does so at the cost of basic tenets and principles of administrative law and the rule of law.”
A bill built on suspended oversight
Among the most troubling aspects, according to Jafari, is the bill’s systematic pullback from established oversight mechanisms. The legislation exempts key decision-making powers from the Statutory Instruments Act, removing safeguards that ensure government actions are subject to Charter and Bill of Rights review and do not unduly infringe on existing rights.
“The overarching concern is the removal of scrutiny, the removal of the ordinary review mechanisms,” Jafari says. “These amendments take decision-making away from long-ingrained concepts of administrative law and the rule of law.”
The bill substantially expands the Governor-in-Council's authority, giving the cabinet untrammelled power to suspend, terminate, or refuse to process entire categories of immigration applications. These powers could be exercised based on nationality or program stream, without prior review for legality or compliance with rights. The expanded authorities include the unilateral cancellation, suspension or variation of immigration documents, broadened enforcement capabilities, and new pathways for information sharing between government bodies. “With these concerns about the lack of ordinary review comes the concern about how these powers might be exercised,” Jafari warns.
A presumption of risk
A central theme in the committee’s analysis of the proposed bill, Jafari explains, is that it appears to treat immigrants through a national-security lens.
“The bill creates the presumption that immigrants are an inherent security threat,” they say. “Rather, they are often very deserving and capable. Moving immigration processing into a national-security framework risks reinforcing an inaccurate and harmful narrative – one that will come at the cost of many deserving immigrants and would-be immigrants being denied status they ought to have or having those statuses taken away without public and judicial oversight.”
Consequences for refugee claimants
Despite government assertions that the reforms will address backlogs and inefficiencies, Jafari cites the CILA analysis, which suggests that the bill does nothing to alleviate existing processing delays and may even worsen outcomes for many legitimate refugee claimants.
“The proposed amendments do nothing to address the actual backlog,” they say. “They will also cause many deserving claimants to be deprived of the opportunity to make a refugee claim.”
The restrictions surrounding refugee eligibility are raising significant concerns for CILA, which Jafari notes may violate both Charter rights and international legal obligations. “We are very concerned about the refugee eligibility parameters.”
Claimants who would have had access to the Immigration and Refugee Board would instead be diverted to the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) system, which Jafari describes as “far inferior” in procedural fairness and decision-making expertise.
People from countries under a removal moratorium would also be disproportionately impacted. Because Canada has temporarily suspended removals to those countries for safety reasons, individuals from these countries are not considered “removal ready” and therefore cannot access a PRRA. Under the new regime, they would also be barred from making a refugee claim.
“Without eligibility for a refugee claim and without eligibility for a PRRA, they will be left in a state of limbo,” Jafari says. “They will have tenuous rights, temporary work permits they must constantly renew, but no peace of mind about their future.”
Oversight gaps and the road ahead
Concerns are compounded by the fact that Canada still lacks two key accountability mechanisms: the long-promised Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) public oversight body, which remains non-operational, and the often-requested Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) ombudsman, which has yet to be established.
“We are extremely concerned about the expansion of these powers without parliamentary scrutiny and without even practical oversight,” Jafari says.
The bill is moving quickly. Clause-by-clause review, as expected, was “perfunctory” and expedited, Jafari notes, and has swiftly moved to the Senate, where it completed first reading on December 11, 2025.
What needs to change
The committee’s recommendations are clear: repeal the bill. If the government insists on moving forward, Jafari says safeguards must be built into the legislation.
“We’ve asked for the bill to be repealed, as have hundreds of other organizations,” they say. “But at the very minimum, if these expanded authorities are retained, there must be specified triggers for their use, time limits for their exercise, and independent oversight of the decisions and policy positions taken through them.”
As the legislative process accelerates, Jafari hopes the public grasps the stakes. “The bill represents a significant regression of Canada’s immigration system,” they say. “It will erode the deeply entrenched principles of administrative law and the rule of law that our legal system is built on.”
A critical need to review the designation of the US as a Safe Third Country
Jafari notes that the escalating conditions south of the border cast serious doubt over whether the US remains a safe country for refugee claimants. The news reports of the mistreatment of even citizens in the rush to deport immigrants paint a picture of a country no longer safe and welcoming to refugees. In fact, the US has now suspended all refugee hearings as of late November, Jafari notes.
“It is beyond doubt that the US’s designation as a safe third country must be revisited. The continued lack of eligibility for people coming from the US to make a claim risks denying very genuine and deserving claimants the right to seek protection,” Jafari says.
