Bill C-43 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 20, 2012
- Debated in principleOct. 16, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 6, 2013
- Passed the second chamberMay 29, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
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 introduces the bill at third reading as a key measure to remove foreign criminals and keep communities safer.
- Rick DykstraHe states his side will support the bill at third reading and send it to the Senate.
- Roxanne JamesSpeaks in strong support of the bill and opposes amendments that would weaken it.
- Wladyslaw LizonHe speaks in support of the bill to protect Canadians by removing foreign criminals.
- Chungsen Leungstates he is speaking in favour of the bill against opposition amendments.
- Parm GillDefends the bill as necessary to protect Canadians from foreign criminals who abuse the system.
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 20 June 2012, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-43 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to limit the review mechanisms for certain foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible on such grounds as serious criminality. It also amends the Act to provide for the denial of temporary resident status to foreign nationals based on public policy considerations and provides for the entry into Canada of certain foreign nationals, including family members, who would otherwise be inadmissible. Finally, the bill provides for the mandatory imposition of minimum conditions on permanent residents or foreign nationals who are the subject of a report on inadmissibility on grounds of security that is referred to the Immigration Division or a removal order for inadmissibility on grounds of security or who, on grounds of security, are named in a certificate that is referred to the Federal Court.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. · 2012-10-16 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- otherArt EggletonChange clause 5 to require answering only reasonably required questions instead of all questions.Voted down · May 30, 2013 · Senate record
- removes provisionsArt EggletonDelete clauses 9 and 10 to retain humanitarian and compassionate considerations for national security, terrorism and organized crime cases.Voted down · May 30, 2013 · Senate record
- adds safeguardsArt EggletonAdd "knowingly" to clause 16 so five-year misrepresentation ban applies only to deliberate misrepresentation.Voted down · May 30, 2013 · Senate record
- adds review or sunsetArt EggletonRequire the minister to table a report in Parliament within 30 days of any public-policy declaration barring a temporary resident.Voted down · May 30, 2013 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,846 words introduced, 4,821 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions limiting reviews for serious criminality cases, adding public policy declarations, and imposing security conditions were retained with only minor wording tweaks. Parliament added a new explicit replacement for paragraph 34(1)(f) on organizational membership and a reporting duty on declarations.
- Added a new subclause replacing paragraph 34(1)(f) to cover membership in organizations involved in espionage or subversion.
After: “(2.1) Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act is replaced by the following: (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).”
- Added a requirement that the annual report under section 94 must cover the number and reasons for public policy declarations.
After: “(4) The report required under section 94 must include the number of declarations made under subsection (1) and set out the public policy considerations that led to the making of the declarations.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill repeatedly uses ministerial opinions on public policy and national interest plus undefined prescribed conditions, creating subjective standards. Fixed time limits and specific bars on certain inadmissibility grounds supply limited objective anchors.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”
Subjective test turns on the Minister's personal view rather than an objective criterion.“if the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest”
Broad undefined phrase leaves the scope of the exception to official discretion.“The prescribed conditions imposed under subsection (4)”
Key operational rules are deferred to future regulations instead of being stated in the Act.“there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage”
Forward-looking and belief-based standard invites prolonged argument over future conduct.
Clear-cut
“which is not to exceed 36 months”
Hard numeric ceiling on the duration of a declaration.“for a period of five years following”
Fixed statutory period of inadmissibility for misrepresentation.
Discretion. Ministers hold broad power to issue or revoke declarations, grant exceptions, and impose conditions on their own initiative or opinion, with many details left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated reliance on subjective ministerial opinion and undefined terms engages Charter vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under sections 7 and 2.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can dispute whether an opinion was properly formed or conditions applied, but the wide grants of discretion make success difficult.
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.