Bill C-11 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Balanced Refugee Reform Act
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 30, 2010
- Debated in principleApril 29, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 15, 2010
- Passed the second chamberJune 27, 2010
- Became lawJune 29, 2010
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
- Judith SeidmanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jason Kenneymoved the bill and urges all members to support it after amendments
- Maurizio Bevilacquacommends minister's leadership and openness resulting in positive change
- Thierry St-Cyrcalls the bill equitable reforms that are overdue
- Ève-Mary Thaï Thi LacCalls the bill eagerly awaited and badly needed.
- Rick Dykstrastates reforms are necessary and notes colleague's support for many reforms
- Art EggletonSenate · SenatorPresents committee report recommending passage and notes the bill improves the refugee system with useful observations for future review.
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.
What it set out to do
If you have any questions, please contact the Library of Parliament at (613) 995-1166. On 30 March 2010, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act (Balanced Refugee Reform Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-11 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Among other things it • provides for the referral of a refugee claimant to an interview with an Immigration and Refugee Board official, who is to collect information and schedule a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division. The bill also provides for the appointment process for members of the Refugee Protection Division; • provides for the coming into force of an appeals process for claimants to appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to the Refugee Appeal Division; • authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations, safe countries of origin and countries whose nationals are precluded from appealing to the Refugee Appeal Division; • prescribes the type of evidence that may be put before…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
71% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,954 words introduced, 6,841 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core structure for refugee claims, appeals, and designated countries of origin but added new limits, criteria, and procedural rules while removing the 12-month bar on humanitarian requests. Key additions included manifestly unfounded claims and mandatory human-rights factors for designations; several exceptions and timelines were narrowed or rewritten.
- Added a new power for the Refugee Protection Division to label rejected claims as manifestly unfounded.
After: “107.1 If the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim for refugee protection, it may state in its reasons for the decision that the claim is manifestly unfounded if it is of the opinion that the claim is clearly fraudulent.”
- Replaced the original designation process with stricter numerical and human-rights criteria.
Before: “(d) authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations, countries whose nationals are precluded from appealing to the Refugee Appeal Division;”
After: “(d) authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations certain countries, parts of countries or classes of nationals;”
- Removed the 12-month waiting period that had blocked humanitarian requests after a refugee claim was rejected.
Before: “(c) less than 12 months have passed since the foreign national's claim for refugee protection was last rejected or determined to be with- drawn or abandoned by the Refugee Protec- tion Division or the Refugee Appeal Division.”
- Added a minimum 15-day gap before the interview and required consideration of hardships in humanitarian cases.
After: “The date fixed for the interview must not be earlier than 15 days after the day on which the claim is referred, unless the claimant consents to an earlier date.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes a few fixed numbers and defined exclusions with repeated subjective tests and broad ministerial discretion. Most operative rules turn on opinions about reasonableness, necessity, or humanitarian considerations rather than clear objective criteria.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations”
The test rests entirely on the Minister's subjective view rather than measurable facts.“any other thing they consider necessary to provide a full and proper hearing”
Grants open-ended power based on the decision-maker's own assessment of necessity.“the official considers necessary”
Leaves document and information demands to the individual official's judgment without fixed limits.
Clear-cut
“The date fixed for the interview must not be earlier than 15 days after the day on which the claim is referred”
Sets a clear minimum time period.“less than 12 months have passed since their claim was last rejected”
Uses a fixed calendar period rather than a discretionary standard.“inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence (i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act”
Provides an explicit statutory exclusion with no interpretive room.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Minister's opinion on humanitarian or public-policy grounds, to officials deciding what is reasonably available or necessary, and to regulations setting claim thresholds and acceptance rates for country designations.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'in the opinion of the Minister' and 'reasonably expected in the circumstances' could support vagueness or overbreadth arguments under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Because many duties hinge on reasonableness or ministerial opinion, a person accused of non-compliance can readily argue that the subjective standard was not met.
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 2010 Balanced Refugee Reform Act introduced key changes like interviews, public servant decision-makers at the RPD, and the Refugee Appeal Division to speed up processing and manage claims more efficiently, with some initial successes such as the Designated Countries of Origin regime reducing claims from certain countries. However, evaluations indicate that assumptions underestimated resource needs, timelines were not consistently met, and backlogs persisted or grew despite reforms.
- Report of the Independent Review of the Immigration and Refugee Board (2018)reviewThe 2010/2012 reforms aimed to reduce timelines and costs but IRB evaluations found assumptions underestimated resource needs required to meet tighter timeframes.
- Report of the Independent Review of the Immigration and Refugee Board (2018)reviewThe Designated Countries of Origin regime was initially successful at significantly reducing asylum claims from designated countries, though first-level decisions were not faster and a 2015 Federal Court decision extended RAD access.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.