In a move that has sparked widespread concern among refugee advocates, Canada’s proposed Bill C-2, dubbed the “Strong Borders” bill, could jeopardize the safety of dissidents, human rights activists, and journalists fleeing persecution from authoritarian regimes.
Experts warn that the legislation, currently winding its way through Parliament, risks shutting out some of the world’s most vulnerable people—those who have previously visited Canada for entirely unrelated reasons, such as attending conferences, giving lectures, or even taking a family vacation.
As the bill aims to tighten immigration rules and fast-track deportations, critics are urging the Canadian government to reconsider its approach to ensure the nation remains a safe haven for those in desperate need of protection.
Table of Contents
The Controversial Core of Bill C-2
Bill C-2 is designed to overhaul Canada’s immigration system, with a focus on streamlining asylum processes and reducing the total number of claims.
One of its most contentious provisions is a one-year time limit on asylum claims, which begins “the day after the day of [a claimant’s] first entry” into Canada.
This means that anyone who has been in Canada for more than a year—whether as a tourist, student, or professional—would be barred from having their asylum case heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), the body responsible for adjudicating refugee claims.
Instead, these individuals would face expedited deportation processes, with only a preremoval risk assessment (PRRA) standing between them and potential return to dangerous situations in their home countries.
This rigid timeline has alarmed immigration lawyers, refugee advocates, and human rights organizations, who argue that it fails to account for the complex realities faced by those fleeing persecution.
Unlike the United States, where a one-year rule is based on the most recent entry and includes exemptions for certain cases, Canada’s proposed legislation is far less flexible.
The broad application of the “first entry” rule could ensnare individuals who visited Canada years ago for reasons unrelated to their current need for protection.
Who’s at Risk?
The implications of Bill C-2 are particularly dire for dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists, and members of marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, who often face escalating threats in their home countries.
Many of these individuals may have visited Canada in the past for professional or personal reasons—perhaps to speak at a summit, attend an international conference, or study at a Canadian university.
Under the proposed law, these prior visits could disqualify them from seeking asylum if they return to Canada fleeing persecution more than a year later.
Warda Shazadi Meighen, an immigration lawyer with Toronto-based Landings LLP, emphasized the far-reaching consequences of the bill in a recent statement.
“This legislation could unfairly penalize people who came to Canada years ago for reasons completely unrelated to their current need for safety,” she explained.
“We’re talking about foreign dissidents, activists, and journalists—people who may have visited Canada to share their expertise or engage in international dialogue, only to later face life-threatening persecution for their work.
Barring them from asylum hearings because of a prior visit is not only unfair but also undermines Canada’s humanitarian legacy.”
Meighen called for the government to introduce a specific exemption for dissidents and others fleeing political violence or state-sponsored persecution.
At the very least, she suggested, there should be a discretionary mechanism to allow those who fall outside the one-year window to have their cases fairly considered.
A Dangerous Step Backward
Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, described the one-year bar as “a dangerous step that undermines safety for many in Canada.”
She pointed out that the rule could arbitrarily exclude individuals who visited Canada as children or as professionals invited to share their expertise.
“Imagine a renowned journalist or academic who came to Canada to speak at a conference, only to later face death threats or imprisonment in their home country for their work,” Sreenivasan said.
“Under Bill C-2, their earlier visit could prevent them from seeking protection here. It’s a policy that defies logic and compassion.”
Sreenivasan argued that there should be no time limit on the right to seek safety at Canada’s borders.
“The right to protection is a fundamental principle, and imposing arbitrary deadlines risks turning away those who need us most,” she said.
Unintended Consequences and a Call for Scrutiny
Fen Osler Hampson, president of the World Refugee and Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, echoed these concerns, warning that the bill’s wording could have “profound and unintentionally discriminatory” consequences.
He urged the government to carefully review every aspect of the legislation to ensure it aligns with Canada’s humanitarian commitments.
“Legislative drafting is a delicate process, and even a single misplaced word can have far-reaching implications,” Hampson said.
“In this case, the consequences could be devastating for those who rely on Canada as a safe haven.”
Hampson’s call for scrutiny highlights a broader concern among experts: that the bill’s focus on “migration integrity” and reducing asylum claims could inadvertently harm those it is meant to protect.
Canada has long prided itself on being a refuge for those fleeing persecution, as evidenced by cases like that of Maryam Shafipour, an Iranian human rights activist who found safety in Canada after enduring solitary confinement in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison.
Advocates fear that Bill C-2 could erode this legacy, making it harder for others like Shafipour to find sanctuary.
The Government’s Stance
The federal government, through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), has defended Bill C-2 as a necessary step to modernize the asylum system and address bottlenecks at the IRB.
IRCC spokesperson Jeffrey MacDonald stated that the reforms are intended to make the asylum process faster while upholding Canada’s commitment to protecting those in need.
He noted that individuals who have been in Canada for more than a year can still apply for asylum, but their cases would not be heard by the IRB.
Instead, they would be subject to a PRRA, which assesses the risks of deportation to their home country.
To handle the expected increase in PRRA applications if the bill becomes law, IRCC is bolstering its capacity to conduct these assessments.
However, critics argue that the PRRA process is not an adequate substitute for a full IRB hearing, as it is less comprehensive and offers fewer procedural safeguards.
A Humanitarian Legacy at Stake
Gila Cotler, CEO of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, emphasized the importance of maintaining Canada’s reputation as a haven for those fleeing oppression.
“In an era of rising global authoritarianism, Canada must ensure its refugee framework reflects the spirit of our humanitarian commitments,” Cotler said.
“We cannot allow policies—whether intentional or not—to close the door on courageous individuals who risk their lives to speak truth to power.”
The debate over Bill C-2 comes at a time when Canada is already grappling with the challenges of managing asylum claims.
Recent reports indicate that the government has spent $1.1 billion on hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, a figure that has fueled public and political pressure to tighten immigration policies.
However, advocates argue that efficiency should not come at the expense of compassion or fairness.
As Bill C-2 moves through Parliament, the stakes are high, not only for the individuals who may be denied protection but also for Canada’s global reputation as a champion of human rights.
With authoritarian regimes cracking down on dissent worldwide, Canada’s response to this crisis will be closely watched.
Will the nation uphold its legacy as a beacon of hope for the persecuted, or will Bill C-2 mark a turning point toward a more restrictive and less compassionate immigration system?
Canada has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to ensure that its borders remain open to those who need protection most.
Stay updated with CTC News.
