Hon. Danièle Henkel: Honourable senators, I rise today to add my voice to those who have already spoken to this bill and to share two concerns regarding Bill C-12.
I rise because, like you, I’ve been contacted by many credible organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association and a number of human rights organizations active on the front lines of these issues.
[English]Let me be clear: Canada must maintain an asylum system that is credible, well managed and effective. It must also process claims with rigour, within reasonable time frames and with responsible stewardship of public resources.
Like any administrative system, the asylum process can be vulnerable to abuse. I, therefore, understand the government’s effort to maintain its integrity. However, we must also recognize a fundamental reality: We are not talking about an ordinary administrative process.
The asylum system exists because, in some circumstances, the protection we offer is the only protection people have left. Canada’s reputation for protecting those fleeing persecution is founded on firm legal foundations: the right to a fair hearing, the principle of non-refoulement and an individualized assessment of every case.
It is precisely in light of these fundamental principles that certain provisions of Bill C-12 are of great concern.
[Translation]My first concern relates to the one-year time limit for submitting an asylum claim after first entering Canada. According to the bill, an asylum claim filed more than one year after arrival in Canada could be denied consideration by the IRB solely on the basis of the time elapsed.
In other words, Bill C-12 assumes that a person under threat would apply for asylum as soon as they arrive, without delay. However, this view ignores the fact that migration can be complex and that danger may arise after a person’s entry into Canada.
A coup d’état may break out in an international student’s country of origin. A journalist may become a political target after publishing an article. A member of the 2SLGBTQI+ community may be exposed to new threats following a regime change.
In each of these examples, the need for protection may not have existed at the time of entry into Canada. Such cases may be few and far between, but it is a matter of honour for a state governed by the rule of law to provide a framework for these exceptional situations.
There are other very real reasons why some people wait to apply asylum: fear of the authorities, lack of language skills or just difficulty understanding a complex legal system.
The date of entry into Canada does not have any direct bearing on whether a well-founded fear of persecution exists.
The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees doesn’t specify a time limit for making an asylum claim.
With the exception of the United States, no G7 country prohibits the review of a delayed asylum claim. A delay in claiming protection may raise doubts regarding the claimant’s credibility, but it does preclude the examination of their case.
My second concern echoes that of organizations that are instrumental to the asylum process and is a matter of fundamental principle. I repeat: This is a matter of principle. I am talking about replacing the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s independent review with a simple administrative procedure, the pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA.
The proposed procedure does not offer the same guarantees. It is conducted by a Department of Immigration official and is based solely on a review of the written file, without an in-person hearing. No documentary analysis can replace the opportunity for a refugee claimant to explain their story, answer the decision maker’s questions and personally defend the credibility of their account.
It is also essential for the authorities to be able to assess certain critical elements, such as the political context, apparent contradictions, the trauma experienced and other realities that they may often miss when simply reading an administrative file. Above all, the asylum claims must be reviewed by an experienced, impartial and politically independent authority.
Given these two issues, which I believe to be crucial, I am carefully examining the amendments proposed to improve this bill.
My aim is certainly not to delay or obstruct its passage. I simply believe it is the role of the Senate to amend a bill to make it fairer. It is then up to the other place to ultimately evaluate the suggestions we have deemed necessary to make.
Colleagues, responding to Canadians’ legitimate concerns about immigration while honouring Canada’s legal and humanitarian commitments is the balance we must maintain. It also reflects the values to which we choose to remain faithful.
Thank you. Meegwetch.