Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. I intend to make the case for a simple improvement through introducing an amendment related to eligibility timelines for people claiming asylum.

I am a senator who proudly represents my province of Nova Scotia and has the privilege of living in Mi’kma’ki. I have also lived and worked all over the world and am aware first-hand of the conditions of many asylum seekers.

My Mi’kmaq neighbours welcomed people from France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, the Basque Country, people of African descent and many others seeking refuge and, with that, a better life, at various times over the last few centuries.

Today there is a friendship — nitap — relationship between Peace by Chocolate, established by Syrian Canadian Tareq Hadhad, and Senator Prosper’s community of Paqtnkek.

Canada, my province and our Indigenous hosts have been extending a warm welcome to people from other places for many years and many reasons. This has contributed to our country’s prosperity and to our rich identity.

Bill C-12 is an important bill that comes at an important time for Canada. It seeks to strengthen the security of Canada’s borders and points of entry. It seeks to disrupt transnational organized crime, including fentanyl trafficking and money laundering. It seeks to enhance the integrity, efficiency and credibility of Canada’s immigration and asylum systems. And it is designed to improve information sharing among federal, provincial and territorial partners.

These are all important for our country, for public safety, for public health and to ensure our highly valued immigration and asylum systems are operating in an optimal and fair manner.

I would like to thank the bill’s sponsor, Senator Dean, for his thorough work on the bill and for his openness to discussions on concerns with the bill and ways it could be improved.

I would also like to thank Senator Dhillon for doing an exemplary job as the Independent Senators Group’s legislative lead on this important piece of legislation. Your speech and back-and-forth exchange with Senator Woo on Tuesday helped us to grasp the severity and urgency of dealing with organized crime, how certain elements of this bill will address this and how adjustments to other aspects of the bill will not take away from these important public safety measures.

Senator Martin had wanted to raise a question yesterday about keeping the bill intact so that criminals, particularly those associated with transnational gangs involved in extortion, are not exploiting our system. Senators Dhillon and Woo had clarified that clauses 37, 43 and 44 are the ones addressing extortion and that the minister is able to deem a claimant ineligible for asylum if criminality has been flagged no matter when the claimant initiated their process.

I would also like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for your thorough work examining all aspects of this bill. Your work is essential and valued.

Colleagues, over the past weeks we have been having a healthy — in fact, for the last few minutes — and fruitful discussion on the role of the Senate and, in particular, our chamber’s role in relation to that of the House of Commons.

We have had discussions on what being a chamber of sober second thought means; about being both thorough and efficient; about restraint; about deference; about two-eyed seeing; about our special duty to represent the interests of those most vulnerable in our society and in our world and about how we do that; about balance and making sure that if we do support amendments to legislation, they are well thought through, based on evidence and don’t take away the bill’s ability to succeed in meeting its objectives.

Colleagues, what I have observed in the debate on Bill C-12 and the amendments proposed to date is a combination of a recognition of the importance of representation and a commitment to rigour, to heeding the advice of a wide variety of credible expert witnesses, to fairness, to ensuring balance and, quite frankly, a very heavy dose of restraint.

I say a “heavy dose of restraint” because every amendment we have considered was carefully crafted in order to keep all core elements of the original bill intact and has proposed balanced improvements. In fact, the first recommendation of the report of the Social Affairs Committee’s study of the bill said:

Your committee recommends that Bill C-12 be amended to remove parts 5 to 8.

This recommendation would have caused the removal of those entire parts of Bill C-12, which amend the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Social Affairs Committee provided other recommendations in case that recommendation was not taken up by the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee — and it was not.

The amendment that I will be proposing for your consideration today is a modification of the committee’s Recommendation 8, which was to increase the ineligibility period for refugee claims from the one year indicated in Bill C-12 to five years from the most recent date of entry. Currently, for the In-Canada Asylum Program, there is no time limit for individuals making a refugee protection claim.

Colleagues, we have heard that Canada has a backlog of applicants in its system that is estimated to be around 300,000 — there’s not much data available on what it is and why it is. It makes sense to support appropriate measures to address this situation. It is a situation that might actually be causing harm to those desperate to have their claims settled and their lives moved out of limbo and insecurity and onto a safe and secure track so that they can get on with their lives, provide for their families and contribute to Canada.

Colleagues, Recommendation 7 of the Social Affairs Committee report on this bill addressed this capacity issue in one way, which was by recommending:

. . . that the Government of Canada direct greater resources to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada so that it can continue efficiently adjudicating refugee protection claims, including providing oral hearings and a right of appeal for claimants.

As Senator Mohamed mentioned yesterday, strengthening administrative capacity to deal with backlogs and surges in demand has been done by the government in other acute situations, such as the passport-issuing challenge a few years ago.

Colleagues, the pragmatic amendment I am proposing extends the one-year ineligibility bar to two years. It recognizes the need to address the backlog of asylum seekers while creating a more reasonable timeline, particularly for certain vulnerable applicants — those who will need more time to come forward and who should not be denied their rights to a fulsome consideration of their circumstances.

Our colleague Senator Al Zaibak spoke of his work and the work of our former colleague, the Honourable Ratna Omidvar, with Lifeline Syria. Senator Al Zaibak said:

. . . I saw that rigid timelines affect vulnerable people the most. They need help to learn the system, help to understand the system and help to trust the system.

Senator McBean contributed to this discussion by saying:

As someone who is part of the 2SLGBTQ community, I know that coming out is rarely immediate and can be difficult every time you do it.

She continued:

For many 2SLGBTQ+ refugees, the stakes are higher. They were taught shame and fear and have spent their entire lives hiding their identity to avoid violence, imprisonment or death.

Latoya Nugent of Rainbow Railroad asked me today to tell you that LGBTQI+ refugees arrive in Canada carrying years of persecution and trauma. Justice demands more than one year to heal, prepare and safely claim protection. Latoya recommended the two-year time frame as a balanced compromise.

Our colleagues Senator Simons and Senator Henkel mentioned a number of potential claimants who would struggle to meet the one-year deadline. They include the people who had to rapidly flee their countries and had their lives turned upside down without the wherewithal to find legal counsel and complete the paperwork. They might also have a fear of authorities or difficulty understanding a complex legal system, and some have the added challenge of lacking language skills in either of our official languages. They could be individuals, including international students, for whom political upheaval, a coup d’état or other dangerous circumstances have emerged since they arrived in Canada. In other words, the circumstances causing their fear of persecution or fear for their personal safety may not have existed in their first year in Canada. They could be victims of gender-based violence and experiencing the complex trauma, health impacts and insecurity that come along with that reality. They may not have even been aware they were eligible for asylum.

Organizations presenting to the Social Affairs Committee and communicating with senators on this matter include the Canadian Bar Association, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, Rainbow Railroad, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and the 164 migration scholars and experts from across Canada and internationally who sent our Prime Minister and all of us a letter on this matter. They have cogent arguments against the one-year bar for eligibility.

We also heard about the inadequacy of the pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, particularly for vulnerable groups. The PRRA lacks a guaranteed oral hearing. It does not offer the procedural protections granted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, including the right to appeal, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials do not have the arm’s‑length independence needed to fairly assess the merits of a claim for these groups.

Honourable colleagues, the other elements of the bill we have before us are largely designed with a view to improving the public safety of Canadians and our communities. The amendment I am about to introduce is crafted to ensure we put forth our best efforts to protect the long-term safety of the most vulnerable groups seeking refuge in Canada. The two-year provision will provide a far more reasonable timeline for people in these groups to prepare their claims.

Colleagues, this is why I believe the following amendment is a fair and reasonable measure. It demonstrates our respect and the compassion that Canadians expect of us.

I also want you to know that in the eight years I have served Canadians in this chamber, this is the first time I have introduced an amendment at third reading. I do not have a case of “amendmentitis,” but I do believe it is our collective duty to offer improvements to legislation, especially when they can protect the interests and lives of vulnerable people.