More Analysis on Bill C-12’s Sweeping New Powers

Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026, marking a fundamental reorientation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). While much of the initial public discourse focused on the refugee system, the broader implications for immigration practitioners and applicants lie in a structural shift toward executive control. This legislation effectively moves decision-making power away from predictable statutory frameworks and toward broad, discretionary ministerial and Cabinet authority.

The most significant change introduced by Bill C-12 is the expansion of federal Cabinet powers over immigration processing and status. Under the new law, the government now possesses the authority to pause or stop accepting new applications, suspend or terminate the processing of existing files, and even cancel or vary issued immigration documents—including work permits, study permits, and permanent resident visas—on a category-wide basis. These “mass intervention” powers are not necessarily tied to individual conduct but can be triggered by policy priorities or system pressures. This means that mere eligibility under the law no longer guarantees that an application will be processed to completion; intake itself has become a discretionary act of the executive.

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has raised serious concerns regarding the lack of accountability and transparency inherent in this new model. A central criticism is that Bill C-12 grants the Minister and the Governor in Council vast powers to act “where it is in the public interest,” yet the statute provides no clear definitions or parameters for what constitutes that interest. By deferring the substance of these powers to future regulations, the government has created a system where the rules of the game can be changed without parliamentary oversight or public notice. The CBA argues that this “function creep” risks arbitrary or discriminatory application of the law, as there are few statutory limitations to constrain how these new powers are exercised.

You can read the CBA’s submission here.

Beyond processing, the Act significantly broadens information-sharing capabilities across federal agencies. Personal immigration data can now be shared more freely between IRCC, the CBSA, the RCMP, and other entities for the purposes of enforcement and “program integrity.” For corporate and economic applicants, this means a heightened level of inter-agency visibility regarding their immigration history and status. As we stated previously, the latter amounts to an erosion of privacy but appears necessary to combat fraud and abuse of our immigration system. When combined with the Minister’s new power to define which applications are prioritized or deprioritized, the immigration system moves further away from a “first-in, first-out” queue and toward a policy-driven intake model where the government maintains total operational flexibility.

The legal profession has also highlighted the potential downstream effects on Canada’s reputation. The CBA notes that a regime endorsing the arbitrary cancellation of visas and applications risks diminishing Canada’s brand as a predictable destination for global talent. For those navigating the system, the primary challenge will now be managing the “timing risk” created by a system that can be paused or modified at any moment through executive instruction.

While the bill does include some refugee-specific changes—such as new ineligibility bars for claims made more than one year after entry or certain border crossings—the overarching theme of Bill C-12 is the centralization of power. These provisions are already being targeted for constitutional challenges by groups like the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), who argue that the shift from independent adjudication to administrative screening violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. However, for the broader immigration bar, the focus will remain on the erosion of the rule of law through open-ended discretion. We are moving into an era where immigration law is less about meeting static criteria and more about navigating a dynamic, executive-led environment where the government holds the power to reset the board at any time.