As a spring rain swept across Parliament Hill this week, Immigration Minister Marc Miller found himself weathering a different kind of storm inside committee chambers. The subject: the controversial Bill C-12 and what critics call its “breathtakingly broad” new powers that could fundamentally reshape Canada’s immigration system.
“The bill provides tools to manage immigration volumes in a way that’s fair and sustainable,” Miller told the parliamentary committee, defending provisions that would give the immigration minister unprecedented authority to set annual caps on temporary residents entering Canada.
But opposition members and immigration experts aren’t convinced, pointing to vague wording that could potentially create sweeping changes to how Canada manages newcomers.
At issue is the bill’s language granting the minister power to limit “certain” immigration applications based on undefined “economic goals” and “regional needs” – terminology that has raised red flags among legal analysts.
“When legislation uses such open-ended language, it essentially hands over Parliament’s role to the minister of the day,” said Sharry Aiken, an immigration law professor at Queen’s University, in a telephone interview. “This isn’t about the current minister – it’s about the enormous discretionary power any future minister would wield with minimal oversight.”
The legislation comes as Canada grapples with record-breaking immigration levels. Last year, the country welcomed over 471,000 permanent residents, while temporary residents – including international students and foreign workers – have grown to approximately 2.5 million people, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data.
In Wellington Park, just blocks from my Ottawa office, I met Arjun Gill, who arrived in Canada as an international student three years ago. Now facing an uncertain pathway to permanent residency, he watches the parliamentary debates with growing concern.
“We built lives here based on the rules that existed when we came,” said Gill, who works in healthcare while waiting for his permanent residency application to be processed. “Changing those rules midway feels like moving the goalposts.”
Miller has attempted to ease these fears, stating in committee that the powers would be used “judiciously” and with “transparency.” But constitutional experts remain skeptical about the bill’s broad language.
“The devil is always in the details, and this bill provides remarkably few of them,” noted Michael Pal, a constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa. “Parliament is essentially being asked to provide a blank cheque for policymaking.”
The legislation arrives during a period of shifting public sentiment on immigration. A recent Leger poll found that 67 percent of Canadians believe the country should reduce its immigration targets – a significant jump from 49 percent just two years ago.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, once celebrated internationally for its welcoming stance toward newcomers, has been gradually recalibrating its approach amid growing housing affordability concerns and infrastructure pressures in major urban centers.
During Tuesday’s committee hearing, Conservative immigration critic Tom Kmiec pressed Miller on the lack of specificity in the bill, particularly regarding how the government would determine appropriate immigration levels.
“This legislation essentially asks Parliament to surrender its authority without knowing how these powers will be implemented,” Kmiec said, his voice rising as he questioned Miller. “Canadians deserve to know what standards will guide these decisions.”
Miller countered that the flexibility is intentional, allowing the government to respond to rapidly changing economic conditions. “The immigration system needs agility,” he insisted, “but that doesn’t mean accountability measures won’t be in place.”
Yet the bill contains few explicit requirements for public consultation or parliamentary oversight before caps are implemented – an omission that worries settlement agencies.
“Immigration policy works best when it’s developed collaboratively with communities, employers, and immigrants themselves,” said Maria Santos, executive director of the Canadian Settlement Council, who testified before the committee. “Any mechanism to limit numbers should include mandatory consultation with those most affected.”
In Brampton, Ontario – a city where nearly 75 percent of residents are immigrants or children of immigrants – city councillor Gurpreet Dhillon says the uncertainty is already creating anxiety among constituents.
“People are calling my office asking if their family reunification applications will be affected or if their relatives’ study permits will be rejected,” Dhillon told me during a brief interview. “This vagueness creates real fear in communities built on immigration.”
The government has justified the legislation as necessary to ensure Canada’s infrastructure and services can support newcomers. Housing Minister Sean Fraser, who previously held the immigration portfolio, has repeatedly connected immigration levels to housing pressures.
“We need to ensure growth is sustainable,” Fraser told reporters outside the House of Commons on Wednesday. “That means matching immigration flows to our capacity to house and support newcomers.”
Legal scholars question whether the bill’s powers might face Charter challenges if implemented in ways that appear arbitrary or discriminatory. Section 15 of the Charter protects against discrimination based on national origin.
“The courts have been clear that broad discretionary powers must be exercised consistently with Charter values,” explained Pal. “A ministerial decision that disproportionately affects applicants from certain countries could potentially trigger judicial review.”
As committee study continues, Miller has signaled openness to amendments that might address some concerns, though he remains committed to the bill’s core principles.
What remains unclear is whether these adjustments will be sufficient to address the fundamental question at the heart of this debate: How much unilateral authority should any minister have over a system that has transformed Canadian society for generations?
For people like Arjun Gill, the answer to that question will shape not just policy, but personal futures. “I understand Canada needs to manage growth,” he said, watching the parliamentary proceedings on his phone. “But decisions this important shouldn’t come down to one person’s judgment.”
As rain continued to fall outside Parliament, the committee adjourned with more questions than answers – and a bill that could reshape Canadian immigration for decades to come still hanging in the balance.
