Bill C-31 (Historical)

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

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Jason Kenney  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment 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 Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from 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.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

The records show the New Democrats said that.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

No wonder the Liberals were in so much trouble prior to us coming into government. They could not make a decision to save their life on this issue.

However, Richard Kurland, who was a witness at our committee, said the following:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do. So I’m glad to see today that finally, after several years, someone has the political courage to take the political risk of saying, if you’re from a European country and you can land in London or Paris or Berlin, fill out paperwork, and legally live there, work there, pay taxes there, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada. Buttress that with this reality check. Over 90 percent, and in some years 95 percent, of [claimants from Hungary] didn’t even show up for their oral hearings. They rode on the taxpayer.

Julie Taub, also an immigration lawyer and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, probably appointed by the previous Liberal government—

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

That would've been a good appointment, no doubt.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

The Liberal critic says that she was a great appointment. I am sure she was. Let me quote what she said about the bill. She said:

I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use...

She used the word “bogus”.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

So does the Toronto Star.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

So does the Toronto Star, as the minister has indicated. Therefore, to say that this word should not exist in this process is bogus.

Let me return to the quote. She said:

And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

Who pays for those expensive resources? The taxpayers of our country. She went on to say:

I...like the fact that [the minister] is going to fast-track [some] claims, so they do not clog up the refugee system for genuine claimants. I have clients who've been waiting since 2009, early 2010 to have their hearing, and I represent many claimants from, let's say Africa, the Mid East countries, who base their claim on gender violence or Christian persecution in certain Middle East countries, and they have to wait, because the system is so clogged up with what I consider to be unfounded claims from citizens of safe country of origin.

Since I only have a minute left, I will not use anymore quotes. I have a feeling I will be able to use these over the next six days as we debate this to show that there are professionals involved in this industry who support what we are going with respect to the legislation.

I listened very closely to both the NDP and Liberal critics present their speeches. They told us who did not support the bill. Let me end with this. Millions upon millions of Canadians sent us here. In some respects they believe we did not go far enough. Canadians support the action we are taking with respect to C-31 and in terms of balancing refugee reform in the country. We will continue on their behalf.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, this bill gives the minister alone all the power to determine which countries are safe, while in the former Bill C-11, that task belonged to a panel of experts that included human rights specialists. Bill C-11 was sponsored by the Minister of Immigration at the time.

Why is the government creating two classes of refugees and how can it guarantee that any single country in the world is completely safe from persecution?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Madam Speaker, it continues to boggle my mind that the opposition keeps suggesting that there are two levels of refugees in the world. That is wrong. There is only one. There are those who seek asylum and deserve it, and there are those who seek asylum and do not deserve it.

I appreciate the fact that the member works extremely hard on the immigration committee, and I respect her being here this afternoon, but she was not here in the previous Parliament when we passed Bill C-11 and moved toward a more balanced approach. Bill C-31 would make the process of safe country more transparent and more accountable. How that process would work is spelled out in the legislation and regulation, as is how and when the minister would be able to undertake the issue of safe country.

I come back to the original point of what the refugee system in this country is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about assisting those who genuinely need the help of this country to seek a new life, to seek a new country and to seek new opportunity but it is for those who deserve it, not for those who attempt to get it under bogus means.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the member and I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee where we are studying biometrics right now. I want to give the member a hypothetical situation that may be an analogy.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the government will buy some F-35s for billions of dollars. The Minister of National Defence says that the government is buying those planes no matter what. However, someone on the committee says that maybe we should study F-18s and other alternative aircraft. I suspect that would be a stupid thing to do because the government has already committed to buying the F-35s, even if it is not in the best interests of taxpayers.

I will e now go back to biometrics. The minister has already decided on what he will do with respect to biometrics. The member and I sit on the committee. Is not the minister undermining what we do on the committee by not even listening to what was being said or not even waiting until the committee was done before presenting this legislation?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Madam Speaker, I like to think of it in the opposite. I like to think that the minister views this from a completely different perspective.

At noon today, I and my committee colleagues on this side of the House presented our report that contains 10 recommendations on how to work through the backlog. I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister will look at those recommendations take them seriously. We were going to recommend the super visa for parents and grandparents but the minister did not wait for us to finish our report and said that it was such a good idea that he would implement it now. The minister did not wait to fix the problem like the Liberals did when they were in government. He acted immediately. What more can one ask for?

As for the F-35s and the F-18s, what about the chance that a previous government already passed that and said that those were the planes Canada would buy?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for coming to Mississauga--Streetsville on Friday and making an important announcement on marriage fraud, which we applaud and appreciate.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to this quote and tell me if he agrees. It reads:

We want a fast, fair system where we can give a sanctuary to people who need it quickly and we can weed out the people who don’t have valid claims, get them through a fair process. And if they’re not valid at the end of the day, deport them out of Canada swiftly.

That was said by the NDP immigration critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Would the parliamentary secretary agree with that quote?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville who is doing an amazing job as a member of Parliament in that riding.

If the minister acted quickly on the implementation of super visas for parents and grandparents to come to Canada, that member was one of the first to quickly assemble a town hall meeting to ensure that the people of his community understood what the super visa meant and what the advantage would be. He told the people of his riding at the town hall meeting that if he could help them in any way that he would be there for them. It is good to know that Mississauga—Streetsville has one more Conservative member of Parliament to stand for residents in a way that will assist them.

I agree with the quote by the NDP critic. It is a great quote.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, there is much in this legislation that is deeply concerning to me and other members of the Green Party across Canada. I know the parliamentary secretary has referred to what happened in previous Parliaments, but I was not in the House at that time. However, I am deeply concerned about the approach that will be taken on refugees who arrive by what is called irregular entry.

Since Bill C-4 was introduced earlier this year, Bill C-31 appears to subsume Bill C-4 and provide it in a different fashion. I note now that we will not be interning children under 16 years of age, but what will happen to refugee families that arrive on our shore? Apparently, parents and anyone over the age of 16 who arrive at our shore will to be interned for a year. What will happen to children under the age of 16?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party spends a lot of time in the House doing her job as a member of Parliament, but she also went across this country saying time and time again that she was not coming to Parliament to criticize, that she was coming here to work with the government. I would say to her, with all due respect, that if we are going to use words like “internment”, they be used in their proper context. That is not what Bill C-31 represents. In fact, it is far from it.

When it comes to the detainee aspect of this bill, I will put into perspective the types of lives individuals coming to this country to seek refugee status have led up to that point. How they are treated here is humane, proper and, in fact, in almost every case is better than any type of treatment they received from the country they come from if they are true refugee applicants. If they are not true refugee applicants, they should not be here in the first place.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActGovernment Orders

March 6th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out once again that many people in LaSalle—Émard are in extremely difficult situations precisely because they are trying to claim refugee status. I have heard some very troubling stories.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could tell us why the government decided to amend the legislation and introduce Bill C-31, which, in the end, creates two categories of refugees and makes judgments regarding different refugee cases?