On Sept. 16, 2025, MPs in Ottawa resumed their second reading debate of the proposed Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), introduced by the Carney government in the Commons on June 3, 2025.
According to the minority Liberal government, the wide-ranging federal omnibus bill will, among other things, improve how asylum claims are received, processed and decided and how immigration clients’ information is shared with “federal, provincial and territorial partners.” It will also introduce new ineligibility rules for asylum and create governmental authorities to cancel, suspend and change immigration documents as well as cancel, suspend or stop accepting new applications.
So far, Bill C-2’s immigration measures have attracted plenty of opposition from civil society groups, as well as criticism from the NDP in Parliament. Last June, a coalition of 300 organizations called for the bill’s complete withdrawal, denouncing its proposed expansion of federal officials’ powers to restrict refugee claims and migration as discriminatory and as an attack on privacy and other fundamental human rights and civil liberties.
Critics also contended that Bill C-2 is constitutionally flawed and undermines due process, particularly for refugees. They called for a focused holistic overhaul of the nearly quarter-century old Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), instead of the insertion of piecemeal changes into a border and security bill that creates new powers and authorities for police and federal officials to clamp down on money laundering, fentanyl trafficking and other organized crimes.
If Ottawa is open to expanding beyond ad hoc immigration reform — or making reasonable amendments to Bill C-2, as Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has committed — the Carney government has in hand 100 detailed recommendations the CBA put forward May 25, 2025, as a blueprint for comprehensive reform to “restore balance” to a system the association says no longer aligns with its original policy goals of family reunification, economic contribution, refugee protection and nation-building.
In a 105-page submission titled “Law, Technology, and Accountability: Reimagining Canadian Immigration for the 21st Century,” the 40,000-plus member association of legal professionals is calling for the IRPA to be modernized in a holistic way, rather than via “almost knee-jerk” changes, says immigration lawyer Kamaljit Kaur Lehal, the immediate past chair of the CBA’s national immigration law section.
Kamaljit Kaur Lehal, Lehal Law Legal Services
“If there’s a crisis, then we react and we create this Act [Bill C-2] without much consultation, and there’s not a long-term vision on what the impact of this approach is going to be on immigrants, on people trying to make Canada their home,” she said. “If you are utilizing an omnibus bill to impact people’s lives without public consultation or stakeholder consultation, it goes against the very grain of what we’re advocating for in our submissions,” she said. “There has to be meaningful dialogue and an understanding of how these reforms are landing and impacting people on the ground.”
Lehal said the CBA’s recommendations for reform were put together by a working group with specialized expertise in immigration and refugee law, “on the understanding that the [IRPA] is long overdue for an overhaul and that an approach must be taken which has a long-term vision … that includes fairness, justice and inclusion in any transformation.”
“I remain hopeful that our submissions will help guide the development of Bill C-2 in a positive direction,” Lehal added.
She noted that federal Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab sent a written message last June to the CBA’s annual national immigration law conference, which commended the association’s members for their leadership, “particularly in articulating a 21st-century vision for immigration that prioritizes transparency, innovation and integrity,” and for their help in shaping public policy, strengthening legal institutions and upholding “the values Canadians expect from their immigration system.”
Mario Bellissimo, Bellissimo Law Group PC
Bellissimo chaired the “modernization” working group that produced the CBA’s 100 recommendations for immigration reform. On behalf of the association’s national immigration law section, he also co-leads, with Deanna Okun-Nachoff, the CBA’s forthcoming formal submission on the immigration measures proposed in the “strong borders” bill.
“Do we want to create a system that is innovative, transparent, collaborative?” Bellissimo queried.
“Bill C-2 seems to move in the wrong direction, where we continue to consolidate power amongst very few in the government,” he said. “Rather than spending the resources on facilitation, and on processing and administrative gains — which we all want, all stakeholders want — we are going to again be mired in constitutional challenges, extensive litigation, programs being stopped and started, potential decisions from the court that no stakeholder is happy with, and it’s just the wrong way to go when they’re cutting resources.”
By contrast, the CBA’s report extends “an invitation to engage in a shared belief that we can co-create moving forward,” the certified citizenship, immigration and refugee law specialist said.
“There is a better way,” Bellissimo told Law360 Canada. “And my hope is that if even some of this [report] is adopted, we would see a system that becomes more proactive, rather than reactive [and] becomes more facilitative, while not compromising enforcement and integrity.”
Since delivering the CBA’s report to the government, Bellissimo and the others have been working to get the message out to legislators and officials. “I have received confirmation the submission has been shared broadly with various stakeholders, and [I] have had, and remain in discussions with, various stakeholders,” he said. “I do believe the submissions will have an impact on Bill C-2, either at this [legislative] stage and/or at the regulation and implementation stage.”
In offering what it calls “a roadmap — not only for technical amendment, but for principled renewal,” the CBA remarks that “while enforcement, security, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system remain fundamental policy priorities, the delivery framework has increasingly shifted toward a model that prioritizes risk aversion and administrative control. This evolution has led to a discernible divergence from the Act’s core objectives of fairness, transparency, and humanitarian consideration. The resulting system is less predictable, opaquer, and often misaligned with the principles it was designed to uphold.” Moreover, “while identifying and addressing bad actors is indeed essential to protecting the security and integrity of the immigration system, doing so at the expense of procedural fairness and public trust can ultimately undermine the very objectives enforcement seeks to uphold.”
The CBA says its recommendations tackle longstanding systemic gaps. “We propose reforms to family reunification rules that better reflect diverse Canadian families. We call for a coherent and compassionate refugee protection system that treats inland and overseas applicants with equal dignity. We ask that these same principles of fairness and transparency be adopted with pathways rolled out in response to urgent humanitarian crises. We urge amendments to rein in overly broad inadmissibility provisions that currently lead to disproportionate and unfair outcomes. We also emphasize that legislative modernization must be paired with operational reform to reduce backlogs, delays, and inconsistencies that undermine the system as a whole.”
The CBA emphasizes that it supports the government’s efforts to manage a complex system in the public interest, “but we also believe that a new legislative vision is needed — one that better aligns the IRPA with Canada’s human rights obligations, embraces technological change transparently, and embeds user experience and access to justice as central pillars of good governance.”
The association’s detailed and multipronged 100 recommendations for reform include:
- Amend IRPA to limit the scope of Ministerial Instructions so the provisions cannot be used to terminate or significantly alter core immigration programs without legislative or regulatory processes. Also require advance public notice, stakeholder consultation and an Impact Assessment Statement (like in regulatory processes) before Ministerial Instructions are enacted.
- Define “Public Policy” and “Ministerial Conditions” in the IRPA to prevent the creation of regulatory substitutes via ad hoc policies. Introduce a formalized process for the creation of public policies, including a minimum notice period; public consultation; publication of eligibility rules in the Canada Gazette; and legal reviewability, based on principles of fairness and transparency.
- Create an independent Immigration Ombudsperson reporting to Parliament, with a primary mandate to conduct systemic reviews, monitor fairness and promote transparency and alignment with IRPA’s objectives.
- Embed a “rights-based framework” in the IRPA that mandates public reporting, impact assessments, and the creation of a civil society-stakeholder advisory panel to strengthen democratic participation and accountability in immigration policy development.
- Explicitly incorporate user experience and accessibility into the legislative objectives of the IRPA.
- Mandate a comprehensive review and revision of all immigration forms, notices and correspondence using plain language principles. Design communications to be cross-culturally appropriate, multilingual and easily understandable, particularly for unrepresented or vulnerable applicants.
- Replace first-come, first-served digital intake models with equitable processes, and ensure fair access regardless of time zone, internet connectivity or accessibility limitations. Intake systems should be designed to promote fairness, inclusion and meaningful opportunity to apply.
- Extend the Service Fees Act to immigration programs to formalize service expectations. Introduce legislated, enforceable service standards within the IRPA to ensure timely, predictable and fair processing. Require IRCC to publish performance metrics regularly, with explanations when targets are not met, enhancing transparency and public accountability.
- Amend the IRPA and its regulations to require immigration officers to issue formal notice of deficiency for incomplete or minor omissions, giving applicants a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency before a final refusal is issued. Standardize the reconsideration process with clear timelines, transparent criteria for accepting supplementary information, and a written reasons if a correction is deemed insufficient — with the aim of promoting fairness, consistency and administrative efficiency while reducing unnecessary reapplications and delays in processing.
- Establish an independent Artificial Intelligence (AI) Oversight Unit within IRCC that is responsible for compliance, audits and public reporting, with external review by the Privacy Commissioner, Auditor General and civil society including stakeholder representatives like the CBA and reporting to Parliament.
- Formally recognize and promote the constitutional right to counsel in all immigration and refugee proceedings, and advocate for legislative reform that enshrines this right in the IRPA.
- Amend IRCC’s Administrative Monetary Penalty policy framework to include a categorical exemption for lawyers, recognizing their existing professional discipline regimes.
- Reform IRCC’s public messaging regarding lawyers, including taking concrete steps to formally recognize and integrate immigration lawyers into its service delivery, policy development and public messaging strategies. “The role of lawyers should be clearly acknowledged and respected in all administrative processes before IRCC. This includes formal recognition in file intake, correspondence handling, procedural fairness letters, status inquiries, interview scheduling, and post-decision communication. Officers and decision-makers should be trained to understand the legal and ethical duties of counsel and to treat representatives as essential participants in the administrative justice process — not simply as third parties. Additionally, IRCC should collect and publish anonymized data to assess the impact of authorized representation on application quality, system efficiency, and outcomes. By elevating the role of lawyers from external actors to collaborative partners, IRCC will strengthen both the integrity and effectiveness of its immigration programs. Ensuring their full participation in administrative processes will reduce errors, miscommunications, and delays, while reaffirming Canada’s commitment to a fair, transparent, and professionally accountable immigration system.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Cristin Schmitz at cristin.schmitz@lexisnexis.ca or call 613-820-2794.