Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending sweeping new enforcement measures proposed in Bill C-2, the federal government’s “Strengthening the Border Act,” which would significantly expand Ottawa’s authority to cancel immigration documents and impose strict new deadlines on asylum seekers.
“Canada’s immigration system is managing an extremely high volume of claims,” Diab told CBC News. “We have a responsibility to protect those who truly need asylum, but we also need to process claims more efficiently. Canadians expect a fair and functional system.”
Tighter Timeframes for Asylum Claims
Tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2 proposes numerous amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Among the most significant is a new 14-day deadline for individuals crossing at unofficial entry points to file asylum claims—a sharp reduction from current timelines.
The bill also limits international students and temporary residents to one year from arrival to submit a claim. In addition, deportation orders would now take effect the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn or rejected, accelerating the removal process.
The federal government says the proposed reforms are aimed at reinforcing national sovereignty, enhancing border security, and safeguarding Canadians.
Legal Community Raises Alarm
But immigration advocates and legal experts are raising serious concerns. Adam Sadinsky, co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, warned that the new time limits could prevent legitimate claims from being heard.
“There are many cases where people’s circumstances change dramatically after they’ve already lived in Canada for some time,” he said. “Political unrest, war, or reprisals for human rights activism here in Canada can suddenly make returning home dangerous.”
Sadinsky emphasized that Canada’s refugee system must recognize the evolving nature of risk. “A person may not face persecution when they arrive—but that can change quickly.”
Courts Could Face New Backlogs
From January through April this year, Canadian immigration and border authorities handled nearly 39,445 asylum claims. According to Sadinsky, the proposed reforms may shift the burden rather than alleviate it—moving appeals from the Refugee Appeal Division to the already overwhelmed Federal Court.
Rejected claimants facing removal may be forced to file emergency motions to delay deportation, further clogging the system. Sadinsky argued that Ottawa could have instead issued streamlined approvals for claimants from countries with well-documented dangers, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Government Cites National Security Concerns
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree defended the legislation, saying it will bolster Canada’s ability to fight organized crime, curb illegal fentanyl trafficking, and crack down on money laundering, all while maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.
Justice Minister Sean Fraser acknowledged the court system is already under strain but insisted both the asylum process and the courts must be reformed simultaneously. “We need to act on both fronts,” Fraser said.
In a statement, the Office of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court said it expects that the impact of any new legislation on court workloads will be carefully considered. It pointed to a similar reform in 2010 that added four new judicial positions to handle an increase in immigration cases.
Controversy Over Mass Document Cancellation
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Bill C-2 is the authority it grants the federal cabinet to cancel large numbers of previously issued immigration documents.
Advocacy group the Migrant Rights Network condemned the move, calling it a “mass deportation machine” and a breach of international refugee protections. “This is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention,” said spokesperson Syed Hussan. “It hands unchecked power to the government.”
Diab responded that such cancellations would be rare and require full cabinet approval. She cited the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of a scenario where emergency powers might be necessary.
“When the pandemic began, we had no legal authority to pause or withdraw applications in the interest of public health or safety,” she said. “This legislation prepares us for similar future crises.”
Uncertainty Around Parliamentary Review
The bill has now entered parliamentary review, but no committee has yet been designated to study it. With Parliament set to recess later this month for the summer break, it remains unclear whether a committee will be named in time.
The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it plans to submit a formal letter outlining its objections and intends to testify once committee hearings begin.
Related Topics
