Critics fear mass cancellations of pending applications and existing visas and permits
On October 8, 2025 the Minister of Public Safety introduced to Parliament Bill C-12, entitled the Strengthening of Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. Bill C-12 providessweeping powers to the government to control all facets of immigration processing, affecting both potential immigrants as well as those already living in Canada. Suffice it to say there has been no shortage of concern over exactly how the government plans on using these incredible powers, but in this blog we will provide an overview of what the buzz is about and why some of the concern may be overblown.
Bill C-12 grants extraordinary powers to vary or cancel existing visas and permits, to suspend the intake of new immigration applications, and even eliminate application backlogs if it is Canada’s “public interest”. Understandably, this aspect of Bill C-12 has garnered significant attention because it affects not only those already living in Canada but also would-be immigrants who may already be in an immigration processing queue or expecting to file applications soon. Initially, there was no definition of what the “public interest” means, which caused all sorts of confusion, including whether the Liberal government plans to use these powers to keep people in Canada, rather than to remove them. Indeed, while defending the Bill in its original state, the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Honourable Lena Diab, stated that Bill C-12 was purposefully written using vague language to give the government maximum flexibility to deal with matters in the public interest.
From a legal perspective, the original content of Bill C-12 is highly problematic because it is a basic tenet of good governance that laws should be clear and easy to understand, so that everybody knows what to expect and can conduct themselves accordingly. Writing a vague law just means that the lawmaker hasn’t properly identified the issue they’re attempting to solve, and that is precisely why there has been significant effort made by Members of Parliament since October to introduce amendments to Bill C-12 that would put some safeguards on how the government exercises these powers. Through these efforts, the definition of the public interest has now been narrowed to include: administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety or national security.
Having narrowed the definition of the “public interest”, is there still a compelling case to make for passing Bill C-12 into law? The government says that Bill C-12 will help them respond to “crises and unexpected events”. Yet, the past has shown that we’ve been able to deal with all sorts of issues without such a power grab. For example, when Canada wants to control immigration levels and, by extension, immigration processing times, it has used tools like annual caps and come up with novel immigration models like the now 10-year-old Express Entry system with great success. We also already have a history of pausing the intake of new applications when we decide that it’s in our best interests, such as last year’s sudden announcement that the immigration department suspended the intake of new Self-Employed business applications in order to address backlogs and reassess program requirements. Likewise, there is precedent for cancelling large backlogs of unprocessed immigration applications to deal with changing labour market needs. If, on the other hand, you’re looking at removing bad actors like those who came to Canada fraudulently, there are already legal mechanisms in place to deport them. If we are being objective about the issue, Canada doesn’t generally have a problem identifying wrongdoers that should be deported, but it does have a clearly documented problem of deporting people because it is extremely difficult and costly to ensure that people leave Canada when they are supposed to. As recent reporting from CTV News shows, Canada has more than 33,000 removal warrants in its inventory, with more than 10,000 warrants that have been active for more than a year. In other words, if we reach the point of needing to cancel somebody’s immigration permit, then it’s already too late! The damage is done. Allowing the government to cancel visas or permits en masse, or cancelling pending applications en masse, merely serves to cover up the greater problem that our underlying immigration programs and policies have failed. On top of that, it will only create more immigration litigation, which our courts cannot handle.
Given the limited benefits that I anticipate Bill C-12 will confer, we also have to think about the potential harm that it can do. Canada is going through a bit of soul searching these days, as we reflect on our current level of immigration and what the right balance is. Though we have been very fortunate as a country to be viewed as a top destination for immigration, we should not take that for granted. Bill C-12, whether intentionally or not, sends a signal to the rest of the world that Canada is no longer welcoming to newcomers. As a nation, we haven’t suddenly stopped needing newcomers, but we should be more circumspect in terms of the kinds of newcomers we need and make sure we enact policies that allow newcomers to thrive. Instead, Bill C-12 unnecessarily creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, and this sort of immigration policy is highly unpopular. Look no further than last spring when international students made headlines in British Columbia for protesting sudden and unilateral changes made by the BC Provincial Nominee Program that jeopardized the eligibility of certain master’s students to qualify for permanent residence based on a promise that they would get access to a streamlined immigration pathway if they successfully graduate from a local university offering post-graduate degrees in high-demand sectors. Protesters called this a betrayal and lamented that they would have looked at other university options if they had known that sudden changes like this could happen.
As a Canadian immigration lawyer, I have firsthand experience about just how much immigrating to Canada means for many clients. I cannot imagine advising clients on their Canadian immigration options under Bill C-12’s shadow where rules, requirements, and processing times are subject to change without notice. The passing of Bill C-12 into law will not fix any of the problems currently afflicting our immigration system. If we want to address immigration fraud then we should pass laws that deter bad conduct. We should hold wrongdoers accountable, including unscrupulous actors and third-party representatives who take advantage of unsuspecting domestic and overseas clients. Before we take steps to suspend the intake of new applications or cancel thousands of pending applications we ought to embrace the hard but necessary work of reviewing our existing immigration programs and policies to ensure that they reflect our current needs and values. The government should not get a free mulligan in the form of Bill C-12 to fix its mistakes at the expense of those who immigrate to Canada at great cost and at the expense of Canada’s reputation on the world stage.
