Bill C-31
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
Sponsor
Jason Kenney Conservative
Status
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
Elsewhere
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Votes
- June 11, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
- June 11, 2012 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-31, 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, because it: ( a) gives significant powers to the Minister that could be exercised in an arbitrary manner, including the power to designate so-called “safe” countries without independent advice; (b) violates international conventions to which Canada is signatory by providing mechanisms for the government to indiscriminately designate and subsequently imprison bona fide refugees – including children – for up to one year; (c) undermines best practices in refugee settlement by imposing, on some refugees, five years of forced separation from families; (d) adopts a biometrics programme for temporary resident visas without adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the privacy risks; and (e) is not clearly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”.
- June 4, 2012 Passed That Bill C-31, 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, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 15 with the following: “foreign national who was 18 years of age or”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 15 with the following: “58.1(1) The Immigration Division may, on request of a designated foreign national who was 18 years of age or older on the day of the arrival that is the subject of the designation in question, order their release from detention if it determines that exceptional circumstances exist that”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
- June 4, 2012 Passed That Bill C-31, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 33 on page 14 with the following: “critère”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 13 the following: “(3.2) A permanent resident or foreign national who is taken into detention and who is the parent of a child who is in Canada but not in detention shall be released, subject to the supervision of the Immigration Division, if the child’s other parent is in detention or otherwise not able to provide care for the child in Canada.”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 12 with the following: “foreign national is”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
- June 4, 2012 Passed That Bill C-31, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 37 with the following: “79. In sections 80 to 83.1, “the Act” means”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 78, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 37 the following: “(4) An agreement or arrangement entered into with a foreign government for the provision of services in relation to the collection, use and disclosure of biometric information under subsection (1) or (2) shall require that the collection, use and disclosure of the information comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 78.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 59, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 29 the following: “(3) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide, in respect of all claims for refugee protection, that the documents and information respecting the basis of the claim do not have to be submitted by the claimant to the Refugee Protection Division earlier than 30 days after the day on which the claim was submitted. (4) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide ( a) in respect of claims made by a national from a designated country of origin, that a hearing to determine the claim is not to take place until at least 60 days after the day on which the claim was submitted; and ( b) in respect of all other claims, that a hearing to determine the claim is not to take place until at least 90 days after the day on which the claim was submitted. (5) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide, in respect of all claims for refugee protection, that an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ( a) does not have to be filed with the Refugee Appeal Division earlier than 15 days after the date of the decision; and ( b) shall be perfected within 30 days after filing.”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39 on page 25 with the following: “170.2 Except where there has been a breach of natural justice, the Refugee Protection Division does not have jurisdiction to reopen, on any ground, a claim for refugee protection,”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 17 to line 35 on page 18 with the following: “110. A person or the Minister may appeal, in accordance with the rules of the Board, on a question of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact, to the Refugee Appeal Division against ( a) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting the person’s claim for refugee protection; ( b) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister for a determination that refugee protection has ceased; or ( c) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection.”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 3 with the following: “prescribed biometric information, which must be done in accordance with the Privacy Act.”
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
- June 4, 2012 Failed That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
- May 29, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-31, 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
- April 23, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
- April 23, 2012 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, 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, because it: ( a) places an unacceptable level of arbitrary power in the hands of the Minister; (b) allows for the indiscriminate designation and subsequent imprisonment of bone fide refugees for up to one year without review; (c) places the status of thousands of refugees and permanent residents in jeopardy; (d) punishes bone fide refugees, including children, by imposing penalties based on mode of entry to Canada; (e) creates a two-tiered refugee system that denies many applicants access to an appeals mechanism; and (f) violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and two international conventions to which Canada is signatory.”.
- March 12, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-31, 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, not more than four further sitting days after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Nathan Cullen Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know you look forward to this with some expectations.
I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the rest of this week and for next week.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government House leader appealed to you to reject the idea of allowing separate votes on separate questions facing this House. He did so on the grounds that the amendments would not be accepted by the government anyway. What is the point of us trying to fix bad Conservative bills? According to the Conservative government, reviewing and amending bills is some sort of annoyance that it wants to do away with entirely.
However, the truth is that the government has had a terrible record of getting its own legislation right. It is a bit like trying to unpack a Russian Matryoshka nesting doll. Let us review.
Bill C-4 was panned by so many critics that we lost count. It was left to die on the order paper by the Conservatives.
Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was panned by the opposition. We tried to amend it but the Conservatives rejected the amendments. They then tried to make those very same changes later on, which you, Mr. Speaker, had to reject. The changes finally got made in the unelected and unaccountable Senate down the way.
Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, was so bad that, once explained by the Minister of Public Safety to Canadians, the Conservatives refused to even acknowledge that it was ever in existence. That was some bit of political spin, “You're either with us or you're with the other folks”.
Bill C-31 was panned by the opposition and others. The Conservatives had to amend it at the committee themselves.
Bill C-45, the monster budget bill and the second omnibus bill, actually includes many provisions to fix the first monster omnibus bill in the spring.
This would all be funny if it were not so serious and would have such an impact on the lives of Canadians.
Lastly, I want to say how disappointing it is that the government chose to be partisan instead of saving lives in the developing world, when it voted against Bill C-388 yesterday. This bill would have made it easier for Canada to send generic medications to those who need them most. What an unacceptable decision on the part of the Conservative government.
What does the undemocratic leaning Conservative government have in store for Canadians next?
November 26th, 2012 / 4:05 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Rick Dykstra St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke.
I know that part of this stems from the transparency with respect to Bill C-31, when we talked about safe country of origin and how we moved it from being a regulatory piece attached to the bill and included that transparency right within the bill itself, but those are exceptions to the rule. I credit the opposition and Ms. Sims for pushing on when we dealt with this issue in Bill C-31, agreeing in a convincing way that it was important to have that transparency.
That is not the regular process upon which we build legislation and, as indicated, the framework that will be utilized on negative discretion will be built into regulation. In fact, it's already public. Ms. Sims is correct. She read from the document itself, and that is a document which will be the guiding lamppost in terms of decision-making for the minister.
The fact that we need to maintain some discretion beyond that is critical. I hope the opposition understands that there are circumstances which would elude the information brought forward. If we were to put it in the legislation, it would prevent us in certain circumstances from being able to make a decision that would be necessary.
November 20th, 2012 / 9 a.m.
See
context
Conservative
The Chair David Tilson
We also have Richard Kurland, who has been here zillions of times. I always enjoy it when he's here. I don't know where he stands on things, but I always enjoy his presentations. It's good to see you, sir.
Mr. Kurland is a policy analyst and lawyer, and he has been here before on Bill C-31 and the immigration backlog.
We'll start off with you, Professor Gilbert. You have up to eight minutes to make a presentation.
November 19th, 2012 / 10:50 a.m.
See
context
Conservative
Roxanne James Scarborough Centre, ON
You've mentioned Bill C-31, which has to do with the bogus refugee claimants. We had someone from CBSA here back on February 14, and in terms of removing someone from Canada, he talked about general costs of $1,500 just to remove them—I believe it was $15,000 if you had to have someone escort them out of the country.
It's interesting that you've mentioned the large costs associated with Bill C-31, but outside of people coming to Canada and just claiming refugee status when they're not refugees, this eTA system will actually provide general savings in different areas.
November 19th, 2012 / 10:45 a.m.
See
context
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Well, as I said, in terms of rejected claimants, under the new system that's coming on stream toward the end of the year under Bill C-31, we estimate taxpayer costs at about $29,000 a year for a failed claimant. If we're able to address a number of those issues, particularly from countries that are visa free—Hungary for one, where we do have a large influx or have had a large influx of refugee claimants from a country without a visa—the eTA is another tool to help us manage those pressures as well.
November 19th, 2012 / 10:30 a.m.
See
context
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We see where other countries are going, particularly the United States, which has had ESTA since 2008, with good success and from which we are learning. A clear example would be issues related to refugee claimants. Under the current system, we estimate the cost to Canadian taxpayers for a rejected claimant runs up to about $50,000 a year with regard to access to social services, welfare, and that sort of thing. With the new system that's coming on board later this year, further to Bill C-31, we would expect those costs to go down, given the shortened period of time that individuals are in Canada, but it's still a significant amount, $29,000 or $30,000 a year.
With eTA, if there are questions around legitimacy of traveller intent and an eTA is refused, then that's a cost avoidance of $30,000 per refugee claimant under the new determination system.
Citizenship and Immigration
Petitions
Routine Proceedings
November 8th, 2012 / 12:25 p.m.
See
context
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Bill C-31, which they call the punishing refugees act, and return to the framework of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, passed with the support of all parties in the previous Parliament, as the current bill, Bill C-31, concentrates way too much power in the hands of one minister.
November 7th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
See
context
Refugee Protection Coordinator, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Please read very carefully the sections that we cite at footnote 5. She is caught by proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). The proposed subsections that you just mentioned do not apply to proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). She cannot ask for ministerial relief. Persons who are excluded from protection under article 1F(a) of the convention and therefore inadmissible on proposed paragraph 35(1)(a) have never been able to apply for ministerial relief. They have been able to apply for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds. Bill C-43, under clauses 8 and 9, is taking that away. We didn't talk about it under Bill C-31. Bill C-31 didn't take it away. Bill C-43 is proposing to take it away.
Moving to the—
November 7th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Rick Dykstra St. Catharines, ON
You're making my argument for me. She actually, then, has the opportunity under Bill C-31 to apply for H and C—
November 7th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See
context
Refugee Protection Coordinator, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
She does. This legislation does many things.
One of the things it does is it takes away the right to apply on H and C grounds for permanent residence of people who are excluded under section 35. As it's explained in our brief, by being excluded from refugee protection under article 1F, she is automatically excluded under section 35. Our citations are there. The sections of the law are there. It's all there. The reason we didn't raise this when we came on Bill C-31 was that Bill C-31 didn't take away the right of people like Salma to apply on H and C grounds. This piece of legislation, under clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-43, does take away her right to apply for permanent residence on H and C grounds. That's—
