On June 3, 2025, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, aiming to amend several federal statutes, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. This legislative proposal seeks to enhance border security, streamline immigration processes, and address concerns related to organized crime and public safety. However, it has sparked significant debate regarding its implications for civil liberties, refugee protection, and Canada’s international obligations.
At the time of writing, Bill C-2 has passed its first reading in the House of Commons and is now at the second reading stage.
New Grounds of Ineligibility for Refugee Claims
One of the most controversial elements of the bill is the introduction of two new grounds of ineligibility for inland refugee claimants, to be added to section 101(1) of IRPA. These would bar access to a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in the following situations:
- Delayed Claims: Anyone who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, and submitted a refugee claim more than one year after their entry would be deemed ineligible. Subsection 101(1.1) clarifies that for individuals who entered multiple times, the one-year period is calculated from the first entry. This provision applies regardless of the individual’s current status in Canada.
- Irregular U.S. Border Crossings: Claimants who entered between official ports of entry along the Canada–U.S. land border (or adjacent waters) and submitted their claim more than 14 days after entry would also be ineligible.
Instead of a full IRB hearing, such individuals would only be entitled to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA); however, the PRRA process lacks the procedural safeguards of a full IRB hearing, such as the right to an oral hearing and appeal, and typically has a lower approval rate.
Retroactive Application of Ineligibility Provisions
Notably, the bill stipulates that these new grounds of ineligibility would apply to any refugee claims made between June 3, 2025 (the date of the bill’s introduction) and the date it receives Royal Assent. This means that individuals who filed claims during this period could find themselves retroactively deemed ineligible under the new rules.
This raises serious questions about legal certainty and fairness. Individuals who filed in good faith, relying on the existing legal framework, may now be denied a full hearing. This undermines the principle of legitimate expectation and could potentially violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person in accordance with principles of fundamental justice.
Additional Procedural Changes: Abandonment, Withdrawal, and Presence in Canada
The bill also expands ministerial powers over the handling of claims before they reach the IRB:
- Section 102.1 permits the IRB to declare claims abandoned if the claimant fails to submit the required documents or appear for an examination.
- Section 102.2 gives the Minister authority to declare a claim withdrawn upon receiving written notice from the claimant.
- Under Section 104.1, both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division must suspend proceedings if the claimant is no longer physically present in Canada.
In short, claimants could lose access to hearings or appeals if removed from Canada prematurely. This significantly alters Canada’s historic practice of allowing refugee appeals or judicial reviews even after a claimant departs or is deported.
Repeal of the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) Regime
In a notable shift, the bill proposes to repeal the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) regime. This regime allowed the Minister to designate certain countries as “safe,” which in turn subjected claimants from those countries to shortened timelines, restricted appeal rights, and other procedural disadvantages. Many advocacy organizations and legal practitioners criticized the DCO system for unfairly penalizing claimants based on their nationality and failing to consider individualized risk.
Bill C-2 would eliminate this system altogether, removing the Minister’s authority to maintain and apply DCO classifications. While this repeal addresses long-standing concerns about discriminatory treatment, it comes alongside broader reforms that could significantly reduce access to protection for a wider range of claimants—particularly those affected by the new eligibility restrictions and procedural suspensions. Thus, any progressive effect of repealing the DCO regime is overshadowed by the overall narrowing of asylum access.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The bill’s implications are vast. Human rights advocates argue it contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits penalizing asylum seekers for illegal entry or delayed claims. The one-year deadline fails to account for sur place claims—those who become at risk only after arriving in Canada. Legal scholars also highlight that the bill erodes procedural fairness and could lead to widespread exclusion based on minor procedural missteps or delays.
Privacy is another concern. The bill expands information-sharing powers between IRCC and other agencies and allows the disclosure of personal information to third parties without sufficient oversight.
The combined effect of these provisions is to centralize discretionary power in the hands of immigration ministers and border authorities—without offering robust safeguards or appeal mechanisms
What Happens Next
Bill C-2 is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. If passed, the legislation will fundamentally reshape Canada’s refugee system—restricting access, reducing procedural protections, and granting the government unprecedented authority to suspend or terminate immigration processes “in the public interest.”
Stakeholders, including refugee advocates, legal professionals, and civil society groups, are calling for amendments to ensure the bill aligns with Canada’s constitutional and international obligations.
