Bill C-2 (Strong Borders Act): What It Does and What It Could Mean

Bill C-2, tabled on June 3, 2025, is framed as legislation to strengthen Canada’s borders, combat organized crime, and restore integrity and efficiency to Canada’s immigration, refugee, and border-management systems. The federal government has presented it as a necessary tool to address rising irregular migration, ballooning backlogs in immigration applications, and security threats ranging from transnational crime to fentanyl trafficking. However, beyond its stated goals, Bill C-2 grants the government sweeping new discretionary powers that could have profound implications for immigration applicants, refugee claimants, and Canada’s overall approach to migration.

At its core, the bill makes several significant amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and related statutes. One of the most consequential changes lies in the powers it grants to the Governor in Council—the federal Cabinet. Under Part 8 of the bill, the Governor in Council may make orders preventing certain immigration applications from being accepted, or suspending or terminating their processing, whenever it is deemed “in the public interest.” In addition, Cabinet would have authority to cancel, suspend, or vary immigration documents, including permanent resident visas, temporary resident visas, study permits, work permits, and permanent resident cards, and to impose or change the conditions attached to these documents. These are very broad powers with little statutory guidance on when or how they should be used.

The bill also introduces new rules on refugee protection. Part 9 creates two new grounds of ineligibility for refugee claims. First, anyone who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, and who files a claim more than one year after entry, will be barred from having that claim referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Second, anyone who entered Canada via a land border with the United States outside a port of entry and who files a claim more than 14 days after entry will also be barred. There is authority to create exceptions to these rules through regulations, but the default position is to significantly narrow access to the refugee determination system. These measures apply retroactively, catching individuals who may already be in Canada. Here we generally support the Bill, given the rampant abuses to the refugee system (most recently due to unscrupulous advisors guiding people to apply for refugee status when their end result will be a failed claim and eventual deportation from Canada), which should be reserved to welcome legitimate and meritorious claims.

The government has been clear about what it sees as the purpose of these reforms. It argues that rising numbers of refugee claimants, massive application backlogs, and complex security challenges require new tools. Official statements describe the bill as a way to restore efficiency, manage migration more effectively, and enhance public safety. Backlogs are a particular concern: as of mid-2025, over 2.2 million applications were in the system, many of which had exceeded processing timelines. Granting ministers and Cabinet the power to refuse, suspend, or terminate applications would, in theory, allow officials to “reset” the system.

Yet, while the government’s rationale emphasizes order and security, the bill is fraught with issues. The first and most glaring problem is the vagueness of the “public interest” standard. Cabinet’s ability to deny or terminate applications hinges on its opinion of what serves the public interest, but the bill does not define the term. Without clear statutory criteria, the risk of arbitrary or politically motivated decisions is high. Applicants and their counsel may have little predictability in knowing which programs or classes might suddenly be suspended or cancelled. Legal challenges are likely to test whether such broad discretion without an intelligible standard is consistent with rule-of-law principles.

A second major concern is retroactivity. Retroactive laws are always fraught with fairness issues, and these measures may well face Charter challenges.

The bill raises significant concerns about administrative fairness and the treatment of existing immigration applicants. If applications can be cancelled or suspended en masse, applicants may lose not only their chance at permanent residence but also their temporary status in Canada. For those already working or studying here, this could mean falling out of status, the end of any viable immigration pathway, and even facing removal.

Another serious concern is unpredictability for the immigration system as a whole, which creates instability and lack of procedural fairness. Families and employers may be unable to plan effectively if key programs can be suspended or terminated at any time. This unpredictability could also damage Canada’s reputation internationally as a country with clear and reliable immigration pathways. It is a breach of natural justice to remove processing certainty when you are told by the Government that you can obtain X outcome if you make the effort to apply for a particular visa. The latter makes a mockery of our immigration system and of Canada’s reputation as a stable, reliable country.

Clearly, reducing immigration backlogs is the objective of the bill. By giving the government the authority to terminate or refuse applications on a large scale, it can effectively reset the system without having to devote the resources necessary to process every case. While this may ease administrative pressure, in our view efficiency should never be prioritized at the expense of fairness and the rights of applicants.

The potential impacts are far-reaching. Existing applicants may lose their status or their significant investments, measured in time, money, and years, into Canada. Sudden policy changes could disrupt the lives of international students, workers, and their families. Litigation is inevitable, particularly around Charter rights to life, security of the person, equality, and procedural fairness. As mentioned, Canada’s international reputation as a rights-respecting country will suffer if Bill C-2 is seen as violating international law.

Much remains uncertain. It is not clear which immigration programs would be targeted first under these new powers, or how Cabinet would interpret the public interest. The government will have to decide whether it will use these powers sparingly or aggressively, and the courts will ultimately have to decide whether the law passes constitutional muster. Hopefully, Part 8 of this Bill will be watered down as it moves through the legislative process.

Bill C-2 represents one of the most significant and alarming proposed changes to Canadian immigration and refugee law in recent memory. The Government should not try to fix self-made backlogs (created by misguided Trudeau immigration policies and insufficient human resources at IRCC and Service Canada) by using such a blunt instrument. This is akin to using an axe to cut an apple. Part 8 of Bill C-2 is not only unfair, it is an affront to natural justice.