Finance Committee on May 31st, 2024

[Heidi Yetman]

As far as I know, the Canadian Teachers' Federation is non-partisan. Each member organization across the country, however, may endorse. Generally speaking, teacher organizations do not lean toward a party, because they need to work with whoever's in power. That's very important. I want to work with whoever's in power.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation does not support any one party.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your sentiments on that. I wish some of your provincial bodies felt the same way.

Thank you for your testimony today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

Now we have PS Turnbull for a couple of minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks.

Ms. Yetman, I have a quick question for you.

I advocated for a national school food program long before getting into politics and during my time in politics. I know there have been school food programs across the country, so it's not uncommon for some programs to already be in place. However, the federal commitment is going to allow those programs to serve significantly more children.

Is that not correct?

[Heidi Yetman]

Absolutely.

I was the president of the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, so I can tell you that there were budgetary measures in Quebec to feed children in schools in disadvantaged areas. However, it was very limited. We're hoping provinces will take this money and expand these programs—not take away from what's already there. That's very important. That's the work that has to be done, moving forward.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes. I'm just clarifying, because sometimes we hear calls like, “There are already programs, so why do we need more?” However, those programs don't serve all kids across Canada. Having the federal investment is certainly going to amplify their capacity to serve more children.

Mr. Elgie, I have limited time, so I'm going to you on the Impact Assessment Act.

Thank you for your testimony today. I appreciated your comments.

My understanding is that Chief Justice Wagner—not to be confused with the famous German composer—talked about co-operative federalism in his ruling and really put emphasis on the federal government and Parliament working with provincial jurisdictions. We've seen provincial jurisdictions push back and challenge the Impact Assessment Act. I think, at this point, clearly defining what's within federal and provincial jurisdiction seems to be at the heart of it.

I think you're saying that the federal government's approach right now is overly cautious. Do you think this is merited, given the fact that there are quite a number of projects in the pipeline, and there's a need for certainty and credibility for that process to continue? I want to put that to you—whether you think it's fair for the federal government to take a bit more of a cautious approach at this moment and then come back through provincial consultation and perhaps add.... I think what you're saying, which I tend to agree with, is that air pollution and GHG emissions should be included in the Impact Assessment Act.

Do you think now is the right time to do that, when so many things hang in the balance? With the Supreme Court decision striking this down, it seems as if we need to patch it up and get it under way again, and then—with the right amount of consultation and engagement with provinces and territories—really come to terms with this once and for all, so we don't have this constant constitutional challenge problem when it comes to impact assessments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You're well over the three minutes, so you have 10 seconds. If you want to elaborate in writing, you can send that to the committee.

[Prof. Stewart Elgie]

Thank you, Chair.

Pretty much every federal environmental law gets challenged constitutionally. You can't avoid that. Every one in the last 30 years has been upheld except for this one.

Yes, I'm a big believer in co-operative federalism. We should try to collaborate with provincial and indigenous governments on environmental assessment as much as possible. International air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are a big gap the provinces and territories can't address. We should do that consultation as soon as possible, because it's a gap until it gets fixed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. That was great.

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

Now we'll go to MP Ste-Marie, please, for a couple of minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Liedtke.

The sharing of financial responsibilities by the financial institution and the technology company will require changes to the prudential standards of financial institutions. What is your expertise in this area?

[Werner Liedtke]

Thank you for the question.

All prudential matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. We focus on financial consumers.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Do you believe the Autorité des marchés financiers will have to change its rules in order to comply with the federal framework?

[Werner Liedtke]

Thank you for the question.

I'm actually not sure of that. I would expect it to be defined within the policy. We'll have to defer that question to the Department of Finance because it's beyond the scope of FCAC and the financial consumer aspect.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I have one last question for you.

When did the government or the finance department contact the FCAC to say that it would be the organization responsible for the framework? I'd like you to give me a date.

[Werner Liedtke]

Thank you for the question.

The budget was announced on April 16, and I was given a call on April 15.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Now we'll go to our final questioner for this second panel today, which is our sixth panel of witnesses.

We have MP Davies for a couple of minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Professor Elgie, I'd like to pick up where I left off. I'm looking for a specific substantive amendment that you would recommend we make to Bill C-69 to correct the issue before us of this retreat, apparently, from federal jurisdiction over cross-border pollution.

[Prof. Stewart Elgie]

Probably the most important one is just to say the same thing for air pollution that the bill now says for water pollution, that significant air pollution that crosses national or provincial borders should be subject to federal environmental assessment. There are other things that could be added on to that.

I would do that obviously in a way that respects co-operative federalism. If provinces are adequately addressing the matter, then the federal government could step back, as it does with most environmental laws, but it needs to have that power in the act sooner rather than later.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Yetman, a study published by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario found that students with increased food insecurity were more likely to have decreased test scores and consequently lower rates of enrolment in post-secondary education. Other studies have shown students facing food insecurity were less likely to meet grade-level expectations for reading and, similarly, for mathematics.

In your view and experience, how will the rollout of the national school lunch program impact students' educational attainments?

[Heidi Yetman]

I think it will have a huge impact on students.

To everybody sitting around this table, when you get hungry, can you concentrate as well? You can't concentrate when your stomach is empty. Teachers in the classroom know when kids haven't eaten. Teachers often have drawers filled with granola bars and apples, etc.

There's tons of research to show that this is the great equalizer. Kids from low-income areas will do much better if they have a meal every day. There have been lots of studies. There was a study somewhere. I wish I could remember where. It was in Sweden or somewhere like that. They did a longitudinal study and, actually, the average size of children grew as well. That's incredible. It's not only mental health. It's physical health. Moving forward, it's also knowing what good foods are.

I think it's really important. It's going to make a big difference in the classroom, especially right now. As I said before, classrooms are more and more difficult. Children who are sitting in a class without food are not concentrating. They're having a hard time. It's going to make things a lot easier for everybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

On that, we want to thank our excellent group of witnesses. Thanks for your testimony and the information you have provided to our committee on Bill C-69. We wish you the best for the rest of your day.

At this time, members, we are going to suspend as we transition to our next panel. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome back, everybody. This is our third panel of witnesses today, although it is our seventh panel of witnesses on Bill C-69.

With us for this panel, we have the Canadian Council for Refugees. Its vice-president, Jenny Jeanes, is with us. Its co-executive director, Gauri Sreenivasan, is also joining us. From the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, the senior director of advocacy, Kayla Scott, will be joining us. From Fintechs Canada, we have the executive director, Alexander Vronces.

We will first hear from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I understand that Jenny Jeanes and Gauri Sreenivasan will be sharing their time, although I believe Gauri is first.

You may commence. Thank you.

[Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is Canada's leading national umbrella, representing over 200 frontline organizations working with, from and for refugees and migrants.

We are very grateful to the committee for having given us this opportunity to present our perspectives and recommendations with respect to the budget implementation act.

Federal budget 2024 had important investments to support refugee claimants, but the budget implementation act is now suggesting major new changes to refugee and immigration law that are extremely concerning, without prior consultation. These include changes that will not only undermine international human rights, but also our reputation as a rules-based refugee leader. The CCR objects to the budget implementation act being used in this undemocratic way to bring in potentially sweeping changes to the refugee system.

As you will see in our brief, our overarching recommendation is for you to either delete major sections of the bill or insist on the immigration and refugee aspects being separated out from the legislation to enable full hearings, debate and further parliamentary review of pending regulations, which have yet to be tabled. Lives are at stake.

We have four major concerns. I'm going to cover two regarding changes to the refugee claims process. CCR vice-president Jenny Jeanes will cover the other two aspects related to CBSA and detention.

It's worth remembering, members of Parliament, that Canada has an obligation under international law to provide safe haven to those who arrive at our shores fleeing persecution. The vast majority of those who seek asylum in Canada—almost 80% last year—are found to be refugees. We have a world-class refugee determination system to hear cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We need to let it do its job, but Bill C-69 is making major changes.

First, division 38 is creating a worrisome new step in the refugee claim process that creates an indefinite gap before referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board—the IRB—in which claimants could be asked to provide endless information and documents with no timeline for the claim to be referred for their hearing. It will lead to long delays, creating indefinite limbo for claimants and not only threatening fundamental rights but also, ironically, undermining the progress that has been made to date in streamlining processing.

CCR is recommending to the committee to amend clauses 410 and 411 to delete the provisions whereby if a claim “is determined to be eligible, the Minister must consider it further” to enable discretion in that case, and to amend clause 411 so an eligible claim must be referred to the IRB within at least a month of the required information being submitted. These are crucial amendments to secure due process.

Our second concern is that division 38 introduces new provisions that trigger an early opportunity for a claim to be declared abandoned before it has even been referred to the IRB. The measure is likely to lead to claims being unfairly declared abandoned, penalizing people who, through no fault of their of their own, miss a deadline or forget to file a document in a byzantine system that is already providing zero formal support services. Those most at risk are likely to be the most vulnerable.

The provision will also—again, counterintuitively—contribute to a backlog of abandonment hearings at the IRB. It is absurd to ram these measures through now. They need to be rethought.

We are recommending that MPs move to delete clause 412 or at least, in the alternative, change proposed section 102.1 from “the Minister must” to “the Minister may” to allow for situations where claimants are obviously trying to complete requirements but are prevented due to lack of counsel. It's only common sense.

I want to turn it over to CCR's vice-president to continue with our presentation.

[Jenny Jeanes, Vice-President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you very much.

As well as being vice-president, I'm also the detention program coordinator at Action Réfugiés Montréal.

A major preoccupation of the bill is the creation of immigration stations. It's deeply disturbing that the government is proposing expanding places of detention on immigration grounds to federal correctional facilities when all 10 provinces have clearly expressed a rejection of the practice of immigration detention in jails.

Creating a new possibility to detain in federal jails is a step in the wrong direction. We should avoid detention, and release through expanded alternatives to detention.

Many of those considered high risk have mental health and addiction issues. Investment should go towards proper supports. If people are detained, CBSA itself can and should manage risk with appropriate independent oversight. Imprisoning detained individuals in jails is punitive and does not respect fundamental rights. There's a risk of geographic isolation. Also, for those seeking protection, being detained in jail is retraumatizing and jeopardizes the chances of their claim being accepted.

Our understanding is that a scan of federal facilities has not been completed. If individuals are detained in federal jails, there's a high risk that they would be in de facto solitary confinement, potentially for long periods of time.

Our recommendation is to delete clauses 433 to 441, which enable the use of federal correctional facilities for immigration detention.