Bill C-35 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 8, 2010
- Debated in principleSept. 23, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 7, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 21, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
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
- Nicole EatonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jason KenneyHe explicitly moves and praises the bill as important legislation to strengthen rules on immigration consultants.
- Paul SzaboSpeaks positively about participating in debate on the bill and highlights problems with unregulated advisers that it addresses.
- Olivia ChowStates that NDP has pushed for tough legislation to crack down on crooked consultants, aligning with the bill's purpose.
- Rick DykstraAs parliamentary secretary, explicitly calls for all members to support the bill at third reading.
- Jim MalowayCalls the bill long overdue and hopes it passes into law after committee improvements.
- Justin TrudeauDescribes speaking on the bill as an honour and highlights the need to stop consultants taking advantage of vulnerable people.
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
On 8 June 2010, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-35 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to change the manner of regulating third parties in immigration processes. Among other things it • creates a new offence by extending the prohibition against representing or advising persons for consideration — or offering to do so — to all stages in connection with a proceeding or application under that Act • exempts from the prohibition: members of a provincial bar or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, and students-at-law acting under their supervision; members of a body designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: and entities, and persons acting on the entities’ behalf, acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with Her Majesty in right of Canada; • extends the time for instituting certain proceedings by way of summary conviction from six months to five years; • gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to make transitio…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,604 words introduced, 1,739 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibition and regulatory framework were retained but the bill was expanded with new penalties, broader exemptions for legal professionals, a longer limitation period, and added ministerial powers. Several technical and transitional provisions were also inserted or revised during passage.
- Extended the prohibition to cover indirect acts and added explicit penalties for offences.
Before: “no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration — or offer to do so — in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act.”
After: “no person shall knowingly, directly or indirectly, represent or advise a person for consideration — or offer to do so — in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act.”
- Lengthened the limitation period for summary conviction proceedings from five years to ten years.
Before: “five years after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceeding arose.”
After: “10 years after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceed”
- Added explicit power to revoke a designation and a reference to Quebec immigration legislation.
After: “For greater certainty, subsection (5) authorizes the Minister to revoke, by regulation, a designation made under that subsection.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The core prohibition and listed exemptions are stated in concrete terms with fixed penalties and a clear 10-year limitation period. However, the Minister's designation power, transitional rules, and repeated references to 'public interest' and 'professional and ethical' conduct leave wide scope for later definition by regulation.
Open to argument
“governs its members in a manner that is in the public interest so that they provide professional and ethical representation and advice”
Uses subjective standards without defining 'public interest' or the required level of professionalism.“measures respecting any transitional issues raised by the exercise of his or her power under subsection (5)”
Grants open-ended regulatory power over transitional membership and authorization without fixed criteria.“in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act”
Broad temporal scope is stated but depends on future regulatory definitions of what counts as an 'application' or 'proceeding'.
Clear-cut
“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both”
Supplies exact maximum penalties rather than open-ended sanctions.“within, but not later than, 10 years after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceed”
Fixes a precise limitation period instead of a vague 'reasonable time' standard.“a lawyer who is a member in good standing of a law society of a province or a notary who is a member in good standing of the Chambre des notaires du Québec”
Names specific, verifiable professional statuses as exemptions.
Discretion. The Minister may designate or revoke bodies by regulation, set information requirements, and prescribe transitional membership rules, leaving the practical scope of the offence largely to executive discretion.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'public interest' and 'professional and ethical' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. The prohibition itself and the listed exemptions are stated with sufficient particularity that disputes would centre on factual application rather than the law's meaning.
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
Bill C-35 established a stronger regulatory framework and designated the ICCRC (now CICC) as the governing body, successfully addressing prior governance and enforcement gaps as confirmed in the 2014 departmental evaluation. However, persistent issues with enforcement delays, ghost consultants, and inconsistent application indicate incomplete achievement of the goal to fully crack down on unauthorized practices.
- Evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (IRCC, 2014)evaluationBill C-35 tightened regulations on third-party representation, created offences for unauthorized advice at all stages, increased penalties, and enabled ministerial designation of a regulator, with the ICCRC successfully established as an arms-length body though early financial and operational challenges remained.
- IRCC Evaluation Findings on Relevance and Performance (2014)evaluationThe evaluation confirmed alignment with federal priorities for fraud reduction and system integrity, appropriate governance structures were implemented, but validation of authorized representatives by officers was inconsistent and compliance mechanisms were still maturing.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.