Bill C-31 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 16, 2012
- Debated in principleApril 23, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 11, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 26, 2012
- Became lawJune 27, 2012
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
- Yonah MartinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ted OpitzDescribes the bill as making significant improvements and cracking down on abuse.
- Rick Dykstradefends the bill and corrects critics in its favor
- Jason KenneyIntroduces and defends the bill as protecting the immigration system while maintaining refugee traditions.
- David Andersonstates the bill will make the asylum system faster and fairer while criticizing opposition amendments.
- Costas MenegakisStates the legislation improves the immigration system in important ways.
- Wladyslaw Lizonendorses the bill for making the refugee system faster and fairer and stopping abuse.
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 16 February 2012, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act (Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-31 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Ac…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2012-03-12 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds safeguardsSenator JafferChanges the age threshold from 16 to 18 in clauses 23-28 regarding detention and designated foreign national status for minors.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 26, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (17,792 words introduced, 12,686 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core framework on irregular arrivals, designated foreign nationals, five-year bars on permanent residence, biometrics and undertakings, but Parliament removed several subsections, renumbered clauses and dropped some enforcement and Marine Transportation Security Act provisions. The final statute is shorter, with tighter wording on suspensions and refusals.
- Removed the 'or' clause and case (c) from the suspension of permanent residence processing.
Before: “or (c) in any other case, until five years after the day on which the foreign national becomes a designated foreign national.”
- Shortened the refusal-to-consider subsection by dropping the cross-reference to subsection (1.2).
Before: “(b) less than 12 months have passed since the end of the applicable period referred to in subsection (1.1) or (1.2).”
After: “(b) less than 12 months have passed since the end of the applicable period referred to in subsection (1) or (”
- Deleted the opening reference to the Marine Transportation Security Act amendments that appeared in the bill title and recommendation.
Before: “An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes precise numerical thresholds and cross-referenced Criminal Code definitions with repeated subjective tests such as reasonable grounds to suspect or believe and ministerial opinion. This creates pockets of clarity on penalties alongside broad discretion that invites argument over application.
Open to argument
“has reasonable grounds to suspect that, in relation to the arrival in Canada of the group, there has been, or will be, a contravention”
Uses forward-looking suspicion standard without objective criteria for what constitutes future contravention.
Clear-cut
“three years, if either (i) the person, in committing the offence, endangered the life or safety of, or caused bodily harm or death”
Sets fixed minimum terms triggered by enumerated objective facts and exact person counts.“punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years”
Uses clear statutory maximum sentence length as the threshold for serious criminality.“criminal organization as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code”
Incorporates an external statutory definition rather than leaving the term open-ended.
Discretion. Officers and the Minister retain wide latitude through repeated reasonable-grounds-to-believe or suspect tests, opinions on identity and danger, and power to set any conditions considered necessary, with further regulation-making authority for vessel reporting.
Challenging the law itself. Provisions using reasonable suspicion, ministerial opinion and broad detention powers could be challenged for vagueness or overbreadth under Charter sections 7 and 9.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons could dispute whether facts met the reasonable-grounds or endangerment thresholds, though the fixed numerical minimums and Criminal Code cross-references limit some arguments.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.