An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

How it changed on the way

28% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,941 words introduced, 2,346 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core purpose of creating a distinct sanctions inadmissibility ground but added coordinating amendments for another bill and a mandatory review after three years. Some technical wording in the sanctions provision and repeal structure was refined during passage.

• The repeal of paragraphs under section 35(1) was split and an 'or' was added at the end of paragraph (b).

  Before: “Paragraphs 35(1)(c) to (e) of the Act are repealed.”

  After: “Paragraph 35(1)(c) of the Act is repealed. (1.1) Subsection 35(1) of the Act is amended by adding "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraphs (d) and (e).”

• Coordinating amendments were added to align with Bill C-21 on firearms if it receives royal assent.

  After: “Coordinating Amendments Bill C-21 15.1 (1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if Bill C-21, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) (in this section referred to as the "other Act"), receives royal assent.”

• A new clause was added requiring parliamentary review of the Act three years after royal assent.

  After: “Review of Act Referral to committee 23 (1) As soon as possible after the third anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted or amended by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing those provisions.”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill ties new sanctions inadmissibility directly to specific orders under named statutes and provides a clear end to inadmissibility once those orders lift. Some discretion remains through phrases such as reasonable suspicion and national interest that invite argument over application.

Open to argument

• “has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality, criminality or organized criminality”

  Uses a suspicion standard rather than an objective fact test, leaving room for differing interpretations of what constitutes reasonable grounds.

• “the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion”

  Subjective judgment on what steps are necessary and whether suspicion is reasonable.

• “if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest”

  Broad undefined term national interest grants wide ministerial discretion without objective criteria.

Clear-cut

• “they are currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act”

  Anchors inadmissibility to the existence of a specific, publicly made legal instrument rather than an open-ended assessment.

• “a foreign national whose entry into or stay in Canada is no longer restricted under a decision, resolution or measure referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or who ceases being the subject of an order or regulation referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) is no longer inadmissible under that paragraph”

  Provides an automatic, objective termination of inadmissibility once the triggering instrument ends.

Discretion. Ministers retain power to grant relief from inadmissibility where satisfied it is not contrary to the national interest and to decide removal orders on sanctions grounds instead of the Immigration Division.

Challenging the law itself. Provisions could be challenged under Charter sections 7 and 9 for vagueness or overbreadth arising from the suspicion and national-interest language, though the direct tie to existing sanctions orders narrows the target.

Disputing a charge under it. Whether a person is inadmissible turns on the verifiable existence of an order under the named statutes, making factual disputes relatively straightforward once the order is produced.

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.