Bill C-11 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 21, 2001
- Debated in principleFeb. 27, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2001
- Passed the second chamberOct. 30, 2001
- Became lawOct. 31, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (37,164 words introduced, 31,795 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core structure and objectives but added new goals on multiculturalism, official languages and foreign-credential recognition while tightening some delegation rules and adding parliamentary oversight of regulations. Several definitions, application principles and transitional headings were also revised or expanded before royal assent.
- New parliamentary tabling requirement was added for certain regulations.
After: “(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of each proposed regulation made pursuant to sections 17, 32, 53, 61, 102, 116 and 150 to be laid before each House of Parliament, and each House shall refer the proposed regulation to the appropriate Committee of that House.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The text mixes a few objective numerical rules and defined terms with repeated reliance on officers' or ministers' opinions and reasonable-grounds tests. This leaves most key decisions open to argument rather than settled by clear criteria.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible”
Subjective standard turns on one official's view rather than fixed facts.“is likely to be a danger to public health”
Predictive and evaluative language invites prolonged dispute over likelihood and danger.“considers necessary”
Broad discretion without objective limits on what conditions may be imposed.“reasonable grounds to believe”
Lower threshold than proof allows wide factual disagreement over what may occur.
Clear-cut
“at least 730 days in that five-year period”
Exact numerical test removes argument about residency compliance.“maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years”
Fixed statutory threshold ties inadmissibility to clear penalty length.
Discretion. Officers and the Minister decide most entry, detention, removal and permit questions by forming opinions on danger, identity, compliance or necessity, with few statutory constraints.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated use of 'opinion', 'likely' and 'reasonable grounds' without definitions engages vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person can readily dispute whether an officer's subjective assessment of danger, health risk or necessity was actually met on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The IRPA established the core legislative framework for managing immigration to Canada and providing refugee protection, with specific provisions like Division 9 evaluated positively for balancing security and rights. However, repeated Auditor General audits document persistent backlogs and multi-year processing delays, especially for refugee programs, undermining timely achievement of protection objectives.
- Auditor General of Canada Report 9 – Processing Applications for Permanent Residence (2023)auditDespite efforts to reduce backlogs, refugee program applicants faced average waits of nearly 3 years, with 99,000 cases pending at end of 2022, exceeding service standards.
- Horizontal Evaluation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Division 9/National Security Inadmissibility Initiative (2020)evaluationDivision 9 remains relevant and effective for mitigating national security threats while protecting Charter and international human rights through Special Advocates.
- Horizontal Evaluation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Division 9/National Security Inadmissibility Initiative (2016)evaluationThe Initiative contributed to immediate and intermediate outcomes by maintaining system integrity, mitigating risks, and enabling use of classified information in proceedings.
- Auditor General of Canada (earlier refugee system audit referenced in parliamentary evidence)auditCanada’s refugee system has been unable to adjust to claim volume spikes, resulting in backlogs worse than post-2012 reforms and waits exceeding targets.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.