Back to Bills

Stops PR Loss for Refugee Cessation

Full Title: An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (cessation of refugee protection)

Summary#

This bill repeals two parts of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that cause permanent residents (PRs) to lose status and become inadmissible (a legal ground for removal) when their refugee protection is ended (cessation). It removes IRPA section 40.1 and paragraph 46(1)(c.1), which link certain cessation findings to PR loss and inadmissibility. Cessation rules themselves remain in IRPA, but would no longer strip PR status. The bill has no spending or tax provisions in its text.

  • Repeals IRPA s.40.1 (inadmissibility for cessation of refugee protection) (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.40.1).
  • Repeals IRPA s.46(1)(c.1) (automatic loss of PR status when protection ceases under IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d)) (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.46(1)(c.1)).
  • Leaves IRPA s.108 (grounds for cessation) in place for non‑PRs; it covers reavailment, reacquisition of nationality, new nationality, and voluntary re‑establishment (IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d)).
  • Does not change other removal grounds (e.g., security, human rights violations, criminality, misrepresentation) (IRPA ss.34–37, 40).
  • Takes effect on Royal Assent; no retroactive restoration language is in the bill text.

What it means for you#

  • Households (permanent residents who obtained PR through refugee/protected person pathways)

    • If the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) ends your refugee protection for reavailment, reacquiring a nationality, gaining a new nationality, or voluntary re‑establishment in your home country, you would no longer lose PR status or become inadmissible on that basis alone, effective on Royal Assent (IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d); Bill – repeal of IRPA s.40.1 and s.46(1)(c.1)).
    • Your access to work, study, health care, and other PR benefits would be unchanged, unless another, different inadmissibility ground applies (IRPA ss.34–37, 40).

  • Protected persons who are not yet permanent residents

    • Cessation rules still apply to you. If the RPD ends your protection, you could lose protected status and be removable if you have no other status (IRPA s.108). This bill does not change that.

  • Travel and documents for refugee‑derived PRs

    • Travel to your country of origin or using/obtaining a home‑country passport would no longer, by itself, trigger loss of PR due to cessation, once the bill is in force (IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d); Bill – repeal of IRPA s.46(1)(c.1)).
    • Other laws still apply. For example, misrepresentation or serious criminality can still lead to removal (IRPA ss.34–37, 40).

  • Sponsors and families

    • The risk that a sponsor or applicant loses PR status because of a cessation finding would be removed going forward (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.46(1)(c.1)). Effects on pending or past cases are not specified in the bill text.

  • Government agencies (IRCC, CBSA, IRB)

    • You would no longer be able to pursue inadmissibility or PR revocation based solely on cessation under IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d) for PRs (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.40.1 and s.46(1)(c.1)).
    • Cessation proceedings could still occur for non‑PRs under IRPA s.108.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

  • The bill includes no appropriations, fees, or taxes in its text.
  • No official fiscal estimate identified as of today.
  • Administrative workload changes (e.g., fewer cessation‑based enforcement actions against PRs) are possible; quantified impacts are not available.
  • Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

  • Protects settled PRs from losing status solely for actions like brief travel home or renewing a home‑country passport, by removing the link between cessation under IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d) and PR loss/inadmissibility (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.40.1 and s.46(1)(c.1)).
  • Avoids duplicative enforcement because other IRPA inadmissibility grounds already address public safety and fraud (e.g., security, human rights violations, serious criminality, misrepresentation) (IRPA ss.34–37, 40).
  • Reduces fear and instability for refugee‑derived PRs and their families by making PR status more secure; cessation would no longer undo PR status obtained through lawful processes (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.46(1)(c.1)).
  • Keeps the integrity tool for non‑PR cases, since IRPA s.108 remains in place to end protection where refugees truly no longer need it (IRPA s.108).

Opponents' View#

  • Weakens the asylum system’s integrity by allowing PRs who reavail themselves of their home country’s protection, reacquire nationality, or voluntarily re‑establish there to keep PR status, despite an RPD cessation finding (IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d); Bill – repeal of IRPA s.46(1)(c.1)).
  • Removes an enforcement pathway (IRPA s.40.1) that currently permits removal of PRs who no longer need protection, unless another inadmissibility ground can be proven (Bill – repeal of IRPA s.40.1).
  • May create incentives for refugee‑derived PRs to travel or reacquire nationality, complicating case assessments and reducing deterrence against reavailment (IRPA s.108(1)(a)–(d)).
  • Lacks transitional rules in the bill text, which could lead to uncertainty for ongoing cessation and inadmissibility cases until operational guidance is issued.
Immigration