Bill C-12 and how it impacts us as migrants: An overview

Bill C-12 intro and history

Bill C-12 is a federal government omnibus border-and-immigration bill. Its full title is “An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.” It was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Public Safety on October 8, 2025.

Its parliamentary history was:

• First reading in the House of Commons: October 8, 2025.

• It later passed the House and went to the Senate; the Senate record shows first reading on December 11, 2025 and second reading completed on February 5, 2026.

• Bill C-12 then passed the Senate with amendments on March 12, 2026 and was sent back to the House of Commons. It will become law if/when both chambers complete that process and the bill receives Royal Assent. 

Bill C-12 Content that directly impacts migrants

Note: we are reading the house-passed version from Dec 11, 2025 of this bill as provided on the LEGISinfo website.

Part 5-8 of the bill are directly concerning migrants.

Part 5: More information-sharing

Part 5 expands the government’s power to share immigration-related personal information. It allows the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose personal information within the Department for purposes connected to their legal powers and duties. It also allows personal information to be shared outside the Department with certain federal and provincial government departments, ministries, bodies, offices, agencies, and Crown corporations, as long as this is done under a written agreement or arrangement and subject to any regulations.

The information shared can include a person’s identity, their immigration status in Canada, and information about immigration documents issued by the Minister, including whether those documents were issued, renewed, restored, refused, suspended, cancelled, or otherwise changed.

For us, migrants, this raises serious privacy and surveillance concerns. When more immigration information can move across government systems, there is a greater risk that our status information will follow us into other areas of life and shape how we are treated. Depending on how these powers are used, this could affect migrants’ interactions with government institutions and access to services.

Example: an international student whose study permit is close to expiring, or whose status has changed because they are waiting on a new application. Under Part 5, immigration information such as their identity, status in Canada, and the status of immigration documents could be shared with certain federal and provincial government bodies and services. In practice, that could mean more government actors have access to immigration-related information that previously may have stayed more contained within IRCC.

Part 6: Changes to the in-Canada asylum system

This section changes how refugee claims made inside Canda can move through the system.

1)    “Eliminate the designated countries of origin regime”;

Canada used to have a system that labelled some countries as “designated countries of origin” (DCOs), meaning the government considered these countries generally “safe.” People from those countries could face different procedures and shorter timelines in the refugee process.

Bill C-12 removes that country-based regime, which means claims would no longer be filtered through that specific “safe country” track.

But this does not automatically mean the asylum system becomes more generous or more accessible overall. While one old filtering mechanism is removed, the bill also adds new powers elsewhere in the process, especially around documents, abandonment, withdrawal, and physical presence in Canada (see below). So the change is not simply “more fair now.”

2)    The Minister can specify what documents and information are required

The bill gives the Minister power to specify what information and documents must be provided in support of a refugee claim.

Refugee claimants are often in crisis, dealing with trauma, language barriers, lack of legal help, or difficulty getting identity papers, translations, or written proof. When the government has more power to decide what documents are required, how they must be submitted, and when they must be submitted, access to the refugee process becomes more dependent on meeting administrative requirements.

In practice, this can make it easier for a claim to run into procedural problems before it is ever fully heard on its merits.

Example: A person makes a refugee claim soon after arriving in Canada but they do not have all of their papers with them due to war or immigration fraud. Later, the Minister sets rules saying the claimant must submit certain identity documents, a written narrative, and other supporting information within a specific timeline and in a specific format.

But the claimant: does not fully understand English, does not yet have a lawyer, cannot quickly get documents from their home country, and misses part of the instructions. Then, because they do not provide everything the way the system requires, their claim can run into procedural problems before the Refugee Board even fully hears why they need protection.

3)    Some claims can be treated as abandoned before referral

The bill allows the Refugee Protection Division to determine that some refugee claims have been abandoned before they are formally referred for full consideration.

This can happen if a claimant does not provide required documents or information, or does not appear for an examination when asked. The Refugee Protection Division must give the person an opportunity to make representations before deciding whether the claim has been abandoned.

What matters here is the timing: a claim can run into this problem before it reaches the main merits stage. That means the case may be closed not because the person’s protection need was fully assessed and rejected, but because the claim was treated as procedurally abandoned.

For people facing language barriers, trauma, unstable housing (thus unstable mailing address), poor legal advice, missed mails, or simple confusion on forms and legal languages, this creates a real risk that the process can end before the substance of the claim is heard.

Example: A person makes a refugee claim in Canada after fleeing danger. They are staying temporarily with friends and keep changing addresses. The government sends a notice asking them to provide certain documents and to appear for an examination. But the person: never sees one of the emails/mails, does not fully understand what documents are being asked for, and misses the appointment.

Before their case even gets properly sent forward for a full hearing, the system will treat the claim as abandoned.

4) Claims can be withdrawn before referral

The bill also allows the Minister to determine that a claim has been withdrawn before it is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, if the claimant gives written notice of withdrawal. The Minister may later reinstate the claim on application, subject to regulations.

Still, this can be concerning in practice. People may “give written notice of withdrawal” because they are confused, pressured, badly advised, overwhelmed, or do not fully understand the consequences. If the claim is then closed before referral, the burden falls on the claimant to apply for reinstatement later. For someone already navigating fear, language barriers, and legal complexity, that is a heavy burden.

5) Physical presence in Canada becomes crucial

The bill also says that if a refugee claimant is not physically present in Canada, the Refugee Protection Division or Refugee Appeal Division may be prevented from moving forward with the claim or appeal.

If the person has voluntarily returned to the country from which they claimed protection before a decision is made, the claim or appeal must be treated as abandoned. In other situations where the person is not physically present in Canada, the process must not begin or must be suspended.

This is important because it makes physical presence in Canada a condition for the process to continue. The focus shifts from whether the person needs protection to whether they are physically in Canada at that moment.

That can matter a lot in real life. A person might leave because of a family emergency, a medical crisis, document problems, border issues, or being stranded abroad. Even if their protection need has not disappeared, being outside Canada can now stop the case from moving forward, or in some situations lead it to be treated as abandoned.

Example: A person makes a refugee claim in Canada. While waiting for their hearing, their parent becomes seriously ill in their home country. They leave Canada to visit them. Because they are now outside Canada, their refugee process may not move forward. And because they “voluntarily” returned to the country they said they need protection from, the claim will be treated as abandoned before there is even a full decision on whether they need safety.

Part 7: Broad new “public interest” powers (IMPORTANT!)

This is one of the most significant parts of the bill. It gives the Governor in Council broad power to make orders whenever it believes doing so is in the public interest.

Under this part, the government could order that certain immigration applications are not accepted for processing, that existing applications are suspended or terminated, and that certain immigration documents are cancelled, suspended, or changed. It could also impose new conditions on those documents or require people to attend examinations, answer questions truthfully, and provide relevant documents or evidence.

This will impact permanent residents and temporary residents (foreign workers and international students, etc.).

1) Applications can be blocked from even entering the system

The bill allows the government to order that certain applications made by foreign nationals are not to be accepted for processing. This includes applications for permanent resident visas, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, work permits, study permits, or other documents.

This means the government could decide that certain types of applications, or applications from certain groups, simply will not enter the processing stream at all during the period covered by the order.

2) Pending applications can be paused or permanently ended

The bill also allows the government to suspend or terminate the processing of certain applications that are already pending when the order comes into force.

That means a person may already have an application in the system, but the government could pause it or end its processing altogether, depending on the order.

3) Existing immigration documents can be cancelled, suspended, or changed

It allows the government to make orders affecting documents people may ALREADY hold, including permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, work permits, and study permits.

The government could:

• cancel or vary those documents,

• suspend them for a period of time,

• or impose or change conditions attached to them.

This is important because it means the power is not limited to deciding future applications. It can also reach into people’s current immigration documents and change the legal conditions attached to them.

4) New conditions can be added

Even if a document is not cancelled, the government can impose new conditions or change existing ones. The bill says these conditions can include requirements connected to compliance with federal laws, regulations, or orders.

In plain language, that means a person could continue to hold a document, but with new rules attached to it.

5) People can be required to appear, answer questions, and provide documents

For the purpose of applying one of these orders, the bill also allows requirements for a person to:

• appear for an examination,

• answer questions truthfully,

• and produce relevant documents or evidence requested by an officer.

  
  

Why this part presents a major concern

This creates a very broad executive power. The key phrase is “in the public interest.” The bill does give some examples of what that can include, such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety, or national security. However, these descriptions are vague and create a risk that the government could justify action on the basis of vague, unproven, or loosely framed allegations. It allows the government to act across a broad range of immigration applications and documents through orders, rather than only through ordinary case-by-case processing.

That is why people are concerned about overbreadth and discretionary power here: the government is being given a large tool that can affect both pending applications and documents people ALREADY hold.

Similar things have happened before in history:

Canada has a history of using broad state powers over migration, status, and mobility in ways that were later recognized as unjust, racialized, or politically repressive. Bill C-12 raises concern because it creates another broad discretionary power that could be used against groups of migrants in the name of the “public interest.”

1)    Chinese head tax / exclusion: Canada imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants beginning in 1885, later raising it, and then moved to the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, which heavily restricted Chinese immigration. This is an example where the state uses immigration law to single out a racialized group through broad exclusionary policy.

2)    Japanese Canadian internment: During the Second World War, Canada used wartime powers and Orders in Council to uproot and intern Japanese Canadians, most of whom were Canadian citizens, and later forced many out of coastal B.C. and even exiled some to Japan. This is an example how broad executive powers justified by “security” can be used quickly and devastatingly against racialized communities.

3)    Labour organizers / political radicals: Canada also used laws such as Section 98 of the Criminal Code and aggressive deportation practices against political radicals and immigrant labour organizers, especially in the interwar and Depression periods. During the Great Depression, deportations sharply increased and immigrants deemed “unsuitable” or burdensome were heavily targeted.

This is only a partial list. There are many more examples throughout Canadian history of migrants being excluded, targeted, or deported through discriminatory laws and state power, and naming them all would go beyond the scope of this blog.

Part 8: New refugee ineligibility grounds, applied retroactively

Part 8 adds two new grounds of ineligibility for refugee claims and says that if a claim is found ineligible, the officer must stop processing it. It also includes a transition rule that makes these new ineligibility grounds apply retroactively to some claims.

The two new grounds of ineligibility are:

1) More than one year after entry into Canada

A refugee claim is ineligible if the person entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made the claim more than one year after the day they entered Canada. If the person entered Canada more than once after June 24, 2020, the one-year clock starts from their first entry after that date, not a later one.

Example: An international student first came to Canada in 2021 to study. Years later, conditions in their home country changed and it no longer felt safe for them to return. After their study permit and post-graduation work permit ran out, they decided to make a refugee claim in 2028. Under this new rule, their claim could be found ineligible because they first entered Canada in 2021 and made the claim more than one year later. If no exception applies, the officer would have to stop processing the claim.

2) Irregular entry along the Canada-U.S. land border, after the deadline

A refugee claim is also ineligible if the person entered Canada at a location along the Canada-U.S. land border that is not a port of entry and made the claim after the time limit set out in the Regulations. The current regulation says that time limit is 14 days after entry.

Example: A person crosses into Canada from the United States at a place along the land border that is not an official port of entry. They do not make a refugee claim right away because they are scared, do not understand the system, and are trying to find legal help and a place to stay. Three weeks later, they make a refugee claim in Canada. Under this new rule, their claim could be found ineligible because they entered Canada irregularly along the Canada–U.S. land border and made the claim after the legal deadline.

The transition rule says that the new grounds:

• do not apply to refugee claims made before June 3, 2025, the day Bill C-2 (not a typo) was introduced; but

• do apply to refugee claims made from June 3, 2025 to the day before Bill C-12 receive royal assent.

This means that some people who already made refugee claims before Bill C-12 officially became law can still be caught by these new ineligibility rules. In other words, the bill reaches backward and changes the legal consequences for a defined group of earlier claims, rather than applying only to claims made after the law came into force.

What stage is the Bill in right now and what happens next?

Bill C-12 has not become law yet. It has passed the Senate with amendments and has been sent back to the House of Commons. The House must still deal with those amendments before the bill can receive Royal Assent.

If Bill C-12 does receive Royal Assent, different parts of the bill may take effect on different timelines. Some provisions may apply right away, while others may require regulations, formal agreements, procedures, or future government orders before they are used in practice. That means we should not assume that every part of the bill will be implemented all at once. Based on the bill text, some provisions in Part 6 are specifically tied to a future order of the Governor in Council.

In other words, Bill C-12 is very close to becoming law, but it is not law yet. We will continue sharing updates as the House responds to the Senate amendments and as timelines for implementation become clearer.