Finance Committee on Nov. 26th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're back in session

I understand there's agreement with the various parties that next Wednesday, at 3:30, there will be a one-hour session with officials from CRA?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, that's very helpful for the chair.

Colleagues, do I have your approval to go about 15 minutes into bells, whenever they start?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Rankin, you said we could deal with clauses 146 to 170?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's very helpful.

(Clauses 146 to 170 inclusive agreed to on division)

I want to thank our officials very much for their interventions on that. I appreciate that.

We will now go to division 4, Criminal Code. We have clause 171.

We welcome our officials to the committee.

Shall clause 171 carry?

(Clause 171 agreed to)

(On clause 172)

Next we have division 5, Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. We have two clauses and we have one amendment on the second clause.

I'll deal with clause 172 first. Shall clause 172 carry?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I think we need discussion on this because we have had incredibly limited conversation here throughout this entire debate around this question of removing the option of social assistance from refugee claimants. We have had virtually no conversation where this clause was also sent to the other committee, because the committee that was sent this clause, Mr. Chair, was dealing not just with this particular provision, but also with changes to the temporary foreign worker program, if I recall correctly.

So in terms of process, one would think that impacts on refugee claimants and impacts on the disastrous temporary foreign worker program would merit some proper investigation by the House of Commons, but at the other committee I believe the opposition was able to call one or two witnesses at the most. So this hasn't been reviewed properly.

We were able to get some testimony on this in committee—members will remember and recall Ms. McIntyre who was from Romero House. But there is also Ms. Jimenez, who I think told one of the more compelling stories that we have heard throughout the entire debate around this omnibus bill.

Much of this legislation is incredibly technical. Much of it deals with aspects of the tax code and it isn't necessarily the most gripping to deal with, but certainly this particular section was powerful. I'm recalling just now Ms. Jimenez's testimony in front of us when she said:

...if you have left your country, if you have left everything you had in your life—your career, your family—for a new country, and you're trying to build trust in this new community, it's a hard time. You don't understand what is happening....

This is from Ms. McIntyre's perspective at Romero House, which committee members will remember is a Christian organization that's set up to help refugee claimants. According to her, such claimants:

...would need to seek shelter in homeless shelters, which are already overburdened—we get emergency phone calls every day for people for whom there are no rooms in emergency shelters—or they'll end up on the streets.

The challenge for us throughout this entire process and throughout this amendment, this one clause in the omnibus bill, was that nobody was asking for this change. This is a move in which the government sought to allow provinces to deny refugee claimants social assistance.

We checked with the provinces. We asked what consultations with department officials had been done. The only instance we were able to find at all, Mr. Chair, was from the Province of Ontario who said that they were asked and who said they don't want this amendment done. It is not in their purview to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance, because as committee members will know, social assistance means a very small amount of money—I think in Ontario we heard something like $600 a month—and that it wasn't in their design to do it.

It's not saving the federal treasury any money. It's not something that the provinces had requested. It's certainly not something that the refugee claimants and their organizations that represent them, the many charitable, Christian-based, various religious-based groups across the country who help refugees out, were looking for.

When you have a change to Canadian law unasked for, unwanted, and that can only do harm, one has to pull back and understand what the motivations could possibly be.

In all of this, through amendments and through the efforts that we're making as the official opposition, essentially pleading with the government to either justify this move, which has not been done yet, or to simply seek to not do harm to a group that we can all acknowledge are disadvantaged at best, because Canada's reputation and our history is built on some measure of compassion.

Refugee claimants are not exactly groups that should be targeted by any government because they've already been targeted once. That's why they're refugee claimants. That's why they're here seeking refuge, as in the name.

We encourage government members to find that place of conscience on this one and decide that we can do something better than what is being proposed right now, and I'll end on this, Mr. Chair. The government has already fought court battles on the removal of medical medicare to refugee claimants and lost and is now spending taxpayer money appealing those rulings.

The Federal Court judge called this cruel behaviour on the part of the government. So why add more pain to those who are already in a difficult situation? Our grave concern is that it is not just affecting refugees, but of course many refugee claimants are here with children.

The idea that we would take away medical assistance and then further exacerbate the problem by taking away any social assistance, which of course pays for the most basic human needs.... It's simply beyond me as a Canadian and a parliamentarian as to why the government would seek this as a priority buried in the midst of an omnibus bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Brison, and then I have Mr. Keddy.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I agree with what Mr. Cullen said. The government is continuing what seems to be an ideological or political attack on refugee claimants. The courts pushed back, and the government continues to fight on the refusal to provide basic health care services for refugee claimants.

Refugee claimants are not guaranteed a work permit from the government, so if they don't have a work permit, they are going to rely on social assistance to survive, at least in the short term. Removing access to social assistance would be catastrophic to refugees and to their families. I think that when we had witnesses before the committee.... It's important to realize that the children of these refugees will be potentially victimized by this. I think these are among the most vulnerable people we have in Canada—refugees, but particularly children of refugees who are denied social assistance.

I think the government has not made a compelling case as to why these changes are necessary, attractive, or positive, or what the arguments would be. It is not clear. The provinces certainly have not requested them. Therefore, as Liberals we stand very much opposed to the proposed changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Keddy, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find the approach of the opposition on this very disconcerting. This is an extremely serious issue. No one should attempt to mislead Canadians that somehow refugees, asylum claimants, and their children are not getting health care. That is absolutely false. They are getting health care. What we are talking about here is failed refugee claimants and bogus claimants; those individuals don't get health care. It's the same as Canadians. Everything that's available to a Canadian citizen is available to a refugee claimant. When that refugee claimant is proven to be a bogus claimant and is leaving the country, that is a different situation.

What we're talking about here is not that we are removing the option of social assistance. That is absolutely not what this does. What this does is introduce a minimum period of residence before foreign nationals can access social assistance. That's with the provinces and territories, because currently the provinces and territories that are responsible for social assistance cannot impose a minimum period of residence on receipt of social assistance without the risk of incurring a penalty in the form of reduced Canada social transfer payments from the federal government.

If a province or territory decides.... If Ontario decides it wants social assistance on day one, that's up to Ontario. If Quebec decides that, it's up to Quebec. The provinces and territories make this decision without threat of penalty. What this does is amend the federal transfer payments to allow for the provinces and territories to introduce the type of condition that would enable them to complement federal efforts to minimize possible incentives for an unfounded asylum claim.

Here is the reality. We've had 10,000 and 15,000 asylum claimants per month from some countries, and 99.9% of them are never filled out. They never come to fruition. However, if we make the system wide open, then we are responsible for every one of those individuals, whether they are legitimate refugees and asylum claimants or not.

All we are doing is putting the power in the hands of the provinces—where it belongs—without threat of penalty. They make the decision, and I suspect they'll leave it as it is, or they may not, but it's up to them. Let's not call this something it isn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Keddy made a couple of statements.

It's strange to suggest that refugee claimants were not stripped of health care when I have a press release from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration restoring health care that had been stripped from refugee claimants. So it's one or the other. The government did, in fact, do this. The court ordered them to stop. Then the government's own release says—and I will turn back to this clause, Chair—that they're going to temporarily restore health care access for refugee claimants and their children until all legal avenues have been exhausted.

So it was the federal Conservatives' decision to then return to the courts, spending more taxpayer money to strip medical access to refugee claimants. That's exactly what the government did. So to try to deny it now.... They only need to restore the access to health care if they stripped it out in the first place, which is exactly what the government did.

In respect to this, the government is asking Canadians to believe that the Canadian Medical Association, the nurses, these charitable groups, and these Christian houses, are all completely wrong with respect to social assistance in application to refugee claimants, and that it's somehow in this other narrow definition of these groups that are going to be affected by this.

This was a measure that was looking for a problem, and if there is some great exposure, or some great abuse of the social assistance program that the government's aware of, they didn't make that known to us. If there's some evidence of medical assistance that's being abused by refugee claimants, they also chose not to make it known to us. This is decision-based evidence-making at its worst.

The government's fine to stand behind its particular initiative, but it simply can't say it has an anecdote or that this should be of no consequence or concern to everybody, when the only testimony we heard was evidence condemning the government's action both on health care and assistance. If the government had evidence that was contrary to this, it was welcome to provide it. It chose not to do so.

In terms of making politics out of something, I have looked through some of these responses to stories that have come up, and there is a disturbing level of xenophobia within those and a constant misperception of who these claimants are, which I think is perpetrated sometimes by the government's own action. That's what's disturbing.

Sit with the policies that the government chooses to make, but don't pretend that everybody's got it wrong, that everybody who actually deals with refugee claimants is somehow ignorant of the facts, and that the government is the sole proprietor of truth in this matter, when we have groups across the non-profit sphere and across the religious and political spheres condemning the government for its actions, and federal courts and federal judges saying the same thing.

The Conservatives got this one wrong. I wish they'd put a little water in their wine and take a step back from this, rather than spending taxpayer money fighting this in court.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I will not repeat Mr. Cullen's arguments because I support them completely. I must point out, however, that the government had every opportunity to invite witnesses to support its vision of the amendments and of their impact. That was not done. No witness came forward to state that the government was correctly interpreting the changes proposed in this measure.

I would like to add that the proposal is for amendments to national standards in one of the largest programs of federal-provincial transfer payments. That is not a matter to be taken lightly. In that context, I believe that the government has already been warned that there could be challenges and constitutional problems because of this measure. As it did, for example, with the amendments to the process for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court, the government is once more pushing ahead with a measure that will certainly be challenged and will probably be overturned.

Why does the government insist on pushing ahead, without even a shred of evidence, to pass a measure that the provinces have not asked for? It was not even asked for by any particular organization. It is being done simply on the basis of an interpretation by the government that no other organization has confirmed. It is completely beyond me.

Once again, I propose that the government withdraw these amendments in order to avoid the humiliation of being at the wrong end of another decision. Eventually, if it wants to demonstrate that its interpretation is reasonable, it can bring that interpretation back in a subsequent bill for more attentive study, rather than burying it in a budget bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I have Mr. Cullen again on the same issue.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I have two points to make.

One is that we know where this came from. This was a private member's bill moved by a backbench Conservative, Mr. Chisu, almost in form and all its substance. The Conservatives can't deny it. He decided not to show up in the House of Commons to debate it. Then they take this through the back door channel and bury it in the midst of a 460-page omnibus bill.

The government can't wash their hands of this one. There are national standards that have application to deny any province from having a prohibition on minimum residency. Those standards, if this motion is passed, if this bill is passed as it is, will be abolished. There will be no national criteria. Now provinces will be free to do something that the provinces have thankfully claimed that they don't want to do, which is to deny refugee claimants social assistance.

If the provinces don't want to do it and all the charities that deal with refugees say this is a bad idea, then you have to ask, what is the motivation of the government to do something like this? It is obviously a back door way to get through a private member's bill that the member himself was too embarrassed to show up to debate.

Here we have it; this is the way legislation is done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order, let's not cast dispersions on other members. Let's not do that.

All those in favour of clause 172?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Clause 172 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

We have about 15 minutes until the vote. We have one clause and one amendment left in this division.

Do you wish to proceed to the vote in the House or do you want to deal with this clause first?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Do we have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have 15 minutes until the vote in the House.

(On clause 173)

We have the Green Party amendment, PV-6.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know I only have a minute in any event, but with the bells ringing and the pressure on us and looking at something as egregious as these clauses, I will reiterate everything that has been said by colleagues.

It is a disgrace that after this omnibus budget bill, where we have been looking at patent law, aerodromes, and repealing the polar commission, we come to fundamental changes to social assistance that have not been asked for by any province. I would have preferred these were defeated and removed from the bill, but I proposed at least a protection.

It would still allow provinces to make changes that would impose residency requirements on other classes of persons. My amendment would attempt to protect those who are awaiting determination.

It would assume that we would not be requiring a residency requirement for those whose claim for refugee protection is eligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, who are waiting a final determination of claim by that board, including a person who's right to judicial review or appeal of that judicial review has not been exhausted, but not including a person whose refugee claim was determined to be abandoned or withdrawn.

It's an attempt to provide a dose of compassion into an otherwise egregious section.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Cullen.