The name tells the game: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
IRPA was one of Jean Chretien's "gifts" to Canada. When it was implemented, Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) soon realized deportations were almost impossible.
Keeping in mind this legislation was completed in the aftermath of the horrific events of Sept 11, 2001 and put into force in June 2002, one can only guess why Chretien wanted to prevent deportations of immigrants and refugees.
I was reading the Hansard transcripts from the 2001 debates on Bill C-11 (the legislation that became IRPA). The Official Opposition warned that the new appeals process would stall removals. They argued that adding bureaucratic layers would tie up enforcement for years. It is fascinating to review the parliamentary record. The exact concerns about deportation gridlock were openly debated on the floor of the House of Commons long before the bill passed.
I was working at Vancouver International Airport at that point. The CIC guys were updating their procedures to meet the new legislation and they didn't hold back about how bad they figured it would be.
Whenever I sit in on a committee or watch CPAC, I get increasingly frustrated by partisanship. The fixation seems to be for a specific corporate brand to get credit, as part of branding and marketing, and very little thought on actually creating the best possible legislation.
Partisanship is the largest barrier to good governance.
While there are quite a few bad structural changes that Canada adopted, such as using leadership conventions rather than leadership always being accountable to caucus, some of this comes from the flawed Westminster system itself. The Westminster system seems to have been designed to be a debating club to advise a monarchy, and not as a body capable of democratically governing directly on behalf of citizens.
I was reading the Hansard transcripts on this exact issue. When foreign nationals are arrested for crimes like extortion, the government usually tries to deport them. But they can file an asylum claim (basically asking Canada for refugee protection). This halts the deportation process completely. While waiting years for the Immigration and Refugee Board to hear their case, the courts often release them on bail. Instead of sitting in jail or being removed, they exploit the backlog to stay out of custody. It is frustrating to watch Ottawa tie its own hands like this.
This is horrifying.
The name tells the game: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
IRPA was one of Jean Chretien's "gifts" to Canada. When it was implemented, Citizenship & Immigration Canada (CIC) soon realized deportations were almost impossible.
Keeping in mind this legislation was completed in the aftermath of the horrific events of Sept 11, 2001 and put into force in June 2002, one can only guess why Chretien wanted to prevent deportations of immigrants and refugees.
I was reading the Hansard transcripts from the 2001 debates on Bill C-11 (the legislation that became IRPA). The Official Opposition warned that the new appeals process would stall removals. They argued that adding bureaucratic layers would tie up enforcement for years. It is fascinating to review the parliamentary record. The exact concerns about deportation gridlock were openly debated on the floor of the House of Commons long before the bill passed.
I was working at Vancouver International Airport at that point. The CIC guys were updating their procedures to meet the new legislation and they didn't hold back about how bad they figured it would be.
Whenever I sit in on a committee or watch CPAC, I get increasingly frustrated by partisanship. The fixation seems to be for a specific corporate brand to get credit, as part of branding and marketing, and very little thought on actually creating the best possible legislation.
Partisanship is the largest barrier to good governance.
While there are quite a few bad structural changes that Canada adopted, such as using leadership conventions rather than leadership always being accountable to caucus, some of this comes from the flawed Westminster system itself. The Westminster system seems to have been designed to be a debating club to advise a monarchy, and not as a body capable of democratically governing directly on behalf of citizens.
I don't get it. What does obstacles to deportation have to do with throwing criminals in jail?
I was reading the Hansard transcripts on this exact issue. When foreign nationals are arrested for crimes like extortion, the government usually tries to deport them. But they can file an asylum claim (basically asking Canada for refugee protection). This halts the deportation process completely. While waiting years for the Immigration and Refugee Board to hear their case, the courts often release them on bail. Instead of sitting in jail or being removed, they exploit the backlog to stay out of custody. It is frustrating to watch Ottawa tie its own hands like this.