Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, this is an interesting time to participate in the debate. I won’t talk about amendments, but I will speak very briefly to the main motion on Bill C-12.

This bill attempts to address a difficult issue by proposing a series of measures to speed up the processing of asylum seekers entering Canada.

As a Canadian citizen, I’m troubled by this bill. I have always believed that, as a wealthy country, it is our duty to be generous to those who come knocking because they’re not safe in their country of origin. They actually have to prove it, which can be complicated.

I have met many asylum seekers in my life, and each time, I could see conflicting emotions on their faces: hope mixed with fear, extreme fatigue, bewilderment and the desire to save their children and offer them a better life. I ask you: What would we do in their place?

This bill makes refugee claims inadmissible one year after the claimant’s first entry into the country. Tightening the rules this way is not without consequences. Gauri Sreenivasan, of the Canadian Council for Refugees, gave an example of a situation that Bill C-12 could create:

A baby who visits Canada with her parents in 2020 would be barred from seeking asylum here 20 years later, even if persecuted as a human rights activist in her country.

All because the baby had already set foot in Canada. That is absurd.

Speaking for the Canadian Bar Association, Deanna Okun-Nachoff rightly said:

Persecution does not obey legislative timelines or stay confined within the first year after one’s entry to Canada.

There may be any number of factors keeping a claimant from filing for asylum within the first year, including precarious living conditions and the obstacles faced by women who are victims of domestic violence.

It’s true that individuals deemed inadmissible under the two new provisions in Bill C-12 could still apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, known as a PRRA. Originally, a PRRA was supposed to take place prior to the removal of someone who had exhausted all of their options in Canada, including a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Moving forward, the PRRA can replace the IRB hearing.

We heard many witnesses explain that the PRRA is not an appropriate substitute for an in-person hearing before the IRB, especially because this bureaucratic process — carried out by public servants, not independent IRB members — offers claimants no guarantee that they’ll have the right to be heard and to try to establish their credibility in person.

This change flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling in Singh, which found that refugees have the right to be heard when decisions are being made about what will happen to them, because these cases are “. . . of such fundamental importance that procedural fairness would invariably require an oral hearing.”

It is also runs counter to the requirements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which recommends that an in-person hearing be mandatory for asylum seekers. The legal officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees explained to the committee:

 . . . a claimant’s opportunity to tell their story provides details and context when decision makers doubt aspects of the case. . . . Hearings allow for closer scrutiny of evidence, reducing the risk of accepting non-genuine claims and accepting those who meet the refugee definition.

Furthermore, although making some claims inadmissible could reduce the number of decisions that need to be reviewed by the overburdened IRB, the outcome of the PRRA may be challenged in Federal Court. The government says that Bill C-12 will reduce delays, but it will overload the Federal Court, which is already reviewing a record number of refugee claims.

Another concern relates to fraudulent claims. Bill C-12 gives the government the extraordinary power to suspend or cancel asylum claims en masse with minimal oversight on the grounds of public interest. There would be no oversight, no checks and balances, no individual assessment and no possibility of appeal.

That’s not all. At the same time, the federal government also announced in the budget speech that asylum seekers will have to pay $4 per prescription drug covered by the federal government and 30% of the cost of eligible services, including dental care, vision care and counselling. Several groups, including Quebec and Canadian pediatricians, believe that these cuts could have a major impact on families seeking asylum, who often suffer from mental distress and financial insecurity. This is yet another reform that reduces supports for asylum seekers.

It’s true that several other countries have much tougher refugee policies than we do, notably the United States, which already has a maximum one-year deadline for applying for asylum, not to mention a range of inhumane deportation practices. However, that is not a good example to follow.

This is the start of another difficult debate here in the Senate. We are not the government, that much is clear. But we do have a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable minorities, and asylum seekers fall into that category.

We need to strike a balance, a difficult balance between reducing delays in the asylum process and maintaining procedural fairness and transparency. Thank you.