Bill C-3 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 22, 2007
- Debated in principleNov. 20, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 6, 2008
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 11, 2008
- Became lawFeb. 14, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Dave MacKenzieArgues the bill provides needed vigilance against those posing danger to Canada.
- Ujjal DosanjhPresents the bill as a crafted response addressing Supreme Court concerns on rights and detention.
- Ken EppDefends the bill as necessary for special terrorism cases despite normal justice concerns.
- Ed KomarnickiStates the bill protects national security while balancing core Canadian values.
- Roy CullenStates the government has made an attempt to achieve the right balance in the bill.
- Judy Sgrodescribes the bill as extremely important legislation creating the special advocate role.
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. · 2007-11-20 · Passed
How it changed on the way
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,960 words introduced, 5,405 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core structure on certificates, detention reviews and ministerial roles but replaced or removed 77% of the introduced text. The final statute added new rules on protection of information and special advocates while updating assent and chapter details.
- Statute format replaced bill format with chapter number and assent date.
Before: “C-3 Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56 Elizabeth II, 2007 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-3”
After: “Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56-57 Elizabeth II, 2007-2008 STATUTES OF CANADA 2008 CHAPTER 3”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes a few fixed timelines and defined terms with repeated subjective tests such as ministerial or judicial opinion and reasonable grounds. This leaves wide room for argument over what evidence stays secret and what conditions or detentions are justified.
Open to argument
“in the Minister's opinion, would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person if disclosed”
Subjective ministerial judgment controls disclosure without an objective standard.“the judge considers appropriate”
Open-ended discretion over release conditions invites case-by-case disputes.“in the judge's opinion, is reliable and appropriate”
Admissibility turns on the judge’s personal assessment rather than fixed rules.“reasonable grounds to believe that the person has contravened or is about to contravene”
Predictive belief standard creates uncertainty about when arrest is lawful.
Clear-cut
“within 48 hours after the detention begins”
Exact time limit removes discretion on first review.
Discretion. Ministers decide what information is injurious, judges decide reliability, conditions of release, and special-advocate powers, and the Governor in Council may designate which minister handles special advocates or split responsibilities by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'in the judge’s opinion' and 'reasonable grounds' could support a section 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim, though the special-advocate scheme and time limits may blunt the argument.
Disputing a charge under it. Because detention and non-disclosure rest on opinions and reasonable-belief tests, a person would face difficulty proving that any particular decision fell outside the statutory language.
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?
effective
Bill C-3 successfully introduced the special advocate regime to address Supreme Court concerns in Charkaoui, enabling Charter-compliant use of classified information in security certificate proceedings while protecting national security. Official evaluations and the 2014 Harkat ruling confirm the regime functions effectively, with special advocates providing a substantial substitute for disclosure and participating meaningfully in cases.
- 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9/National Security Inadmissibility Initiative (Public Safety Canada)evaluationThe initiative achieved immediate and intermediate outcomes by maintaining national security integrity, mitigating risks through certificate processes, and improving procedural fairness, as confirmed by the Harkat ruling.
- Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37courtThe special advocate regime under the amended IRPA provides a substantial substitute for the named person's participation in closed hearings, satisfying section 7 Charter requirements for procedural fairness.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.