Evidence of meeting #33 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was province.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
You're right in citing the 1951 convention. Canada is doing nothing through these measures to detract from the international obligations to provide services to protected persons.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
But once again, asylum claimants don't fit into the “protected persons” definition, and—
4:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Right, so they are claimants until they are determined to be—
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Accepted. I totally understand that.
Amnesty International's secretary general Alex Neve sent the committee a letter to appear before the committee. He wrote, and I quote, “Principles similar to the rule against non-retrogression have been espoused by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has held that once the government puts in place a scheme to provide benefits, that scheme must be administered in a Charter-compliant way.”
I have two questions. I know my time is probably running bleak. Are they compliant with Canada's international human rights obligations, and is it your position that the changes proposed by the FPFAA are charter-compliant?
4:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, I can answer the question about the international convention. The convention requires that Canada offer protection to protected persons, and nothing in this detracts from that. In terms of charter compliance, certainly that would be a zone for legal advice. If a provincial government were to bring forward such a measure, they'd want to seek legal advice in terms of that measure.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
But you're taking my time.
The definition of population that's currently used to calculate the social transfer includes refugee claimants right now. That's my understanding from the library.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Devinder Shory
Thank you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan. Perhaps in another round you will be able to ask questions.
I'll go to Mr. Aspin now.
4:20 p.m.
Jay Aspin Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Thank you, Chair.
Welcome to our guests, and thank you for helping us with this amendment.
My first question is directed to Mr. MacDonald. If this amendment passes, would there be any penalty for provinces that chose not to introduce a minimum wait period?
4:20 p.m.
Chief, Canada Health Transfer (CHT)/Canada Social Transfer (CST) and Northern Policy , Department of Finance
No, there would not be a penalty for a province that chose not to introduce a minimum wait period.
4:20 p.m.
Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Thank you.
Mr. de Vlieger, by prohibiting refugee claimants who are awaiting a decision from receiving social assistance during a minimum period of residence, is Canada failing to meet its obligations as a signatory to the international agreements on refugee protection?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The answer to that one is no, Canada's commitments under the 1951 convention.... Our analysis is that nothing in this detracts from that. That relates to our commitments in respect of protected persons, and nothing in this bill affects the benefits that are provided or could be provided to protected persons.
4:20 p.m.
Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Okay, so there's nothing in this that detracts from that.
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's right.
4:20 p.m.
Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Thank you.
To you again, sir, the rationale put forward by the federal government for potentially restricting refugee claimants' access to social assistance is twofold: cost savings, and reducing the attractiveness of Canada as a place to make fraudulent refugee claims.
Could you comment or elaborate on those two issues?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I haven't seen those particular rationales put forward. From our point of view, the act and the bill remove a condition or a part of a condition that would apply a penalty. So it's facilitative to provinces. It gives them the flexibility in their own jurisdiction to set residency requirements if they choose to do so.
In terms of your question around incentives, certainly there isn't a cost savings to the Government of Canada for social assistance. Social assistance is delivered by the provinces. If there were fewer unfounded claims or claims that were later withdrawn made in Canada, presumably there would be some savings there. But I hadn't heard that those were being put forward as the rationale.
4:20 p.m.
Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Have the federal and/or provincial governments considered the possibility, for example, that if one province implements a residency period requirement, refugee claimants might move to other provinces that have no such requirement? Has that been a consideration?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that could happen because it's facilitative. One province might choose to do it; many others might not, or several would. For claimants who chose to go to a province that doesn't have one, obviously they would have access to the benefits.
4:20 p.m.
Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC
Are you aware of any other groups, other than refugee claimants, who are eligible for social assistance and could be subject to a waiting period should division 5 of C-43 be enacted?
4:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No, I don't believe so. My understanding of provincial social benefit regimes is that they generally, right now, do not have eligibility criteria that would allow temporary foreign workers or international students to access them. That's my understanding. So then the category that would be subject is the asylum claimants, the refugee claimants—yes.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Devinder Shory
Well, thank you. Before we go to Mr. Menegakis, I as the chair would like to take the liberty to seek a little clarification.
I heard you say—this is my understanding—that this change will not make it mandatory for the provinces to adopt this model and neither will it punish any province for choosing this program. Is there any downside for the provinces or territories should they choose to or not choose to adopt this option once it becomes the law?
4:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
There's probably a lot in your question there and a lot that should be directed at the provinces and territories that would have to analyze the situation, as they are responsible for the social benefit regimes and would have to weigh a lot of factors about the design of that particular program. I'd prefer not to speculate on what kind of calculation they'd make about upsides or downsides for the way they design their programs.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Devinder Shory
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Opitz, you have five minutes, please.