Mr. Cash.
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.
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.
3:50 p.m.
Andrew Cash Davenport, NDP
Thank you.
Thanks for being here. If I interrupt, I don't mean to be rude; I just don't have a lot of time.
Mr. de Vlieger, can you concisely tell us what is the point of the minimum residency prohibition to begin with? Why do we have it in the first instance?
3:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll ask my colleague to follow up, but my understanding is that it dates back to 1951.
3:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think it was put in place to facilitate primarily interprovincial mobility, the ability of people to move from province to province and have their benefits stay relatively stable. I don't think it was contemplating foreign nationals at that time.
My colleague might like to follow up on that.
3:50 p.m.
Chief, Canada Health Transfer (CHT)/Canada Social Transfer (CST) and Northern Policy , Department of Finance
That's partly correct. I don't have the name of the act from the 1950s, but it has been a characteristic of federal transfers since the fifties. It went through the unemployment insurance act, I believe was the name, and followed up through the Canada assistance plan in 1966. It was maintained, in a period when greater flexibility was provided to provinces and territories, in the creation of the Canada health and social transfer in 1996 and was carried through to the Canada social transfer when it was created in 2004.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
Was it also to maintain a minimum standard across the country, a coherence across the country? Was that part of it?
3:55 p.m.
Chief, Canada Health Transfer (CHT)/Canada Social Transfer (CST) and Northern Policy , Department of Finance
There have been changing conditions through time as the legislation in this area has changed. For example, the Canada assistance plan was a very different federal-provincial arrangement. It was a cost-sharing program that had a very different relationship.
3:55 p.m.
Chief, Canada Health Transfer (CHT)/Canada Social Transfer (CST) and Northern Policy , Department of Finance
The present condition maintains that there shall be a prohibition against minimum residency, but any other details are left to the provinces and territories.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
Okay.
I'll go back to you, Mr. de Vlieger. You mentioned that you had had some conversations. Our understanding is that only one province was consulted prior to the tabling of the legislation.
I just want to be clear; is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
What is the difference between a conversation and a consultation?
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's a good question. In the course of developing policy options and doing policy work, there's a range of discussions that happen between federal and provincial officials to get background information and to canvas ideas. The immigration field is a shared jurisdiction, and there are many institutionalized working groups, so there is a continuum from formal consultations to conversations. In this particular instance we were directly in touch with several provinces, not just one, about elements that might incentivize unfounded claims.
I think you're referring to some of the media reports in which a particular province said that it had been consulted and had indicated that they weren't asking for this kind of measure.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
I think most Canadians, if they were watching this, would be thinking that if there were to be a change like this, it would have come from requests from the provinces. But the only actual consultation made, if I understand this correctly, was with the Province of Ontario, which expressed concerns over “the potential human rights implications of imposing a waiting period for a specific group”. This is the Ontario minister responsible for this. “We believe that a waiting period could impact people with legitimate refugee claims who are truly in need.” They also expressed a variety of concerns around legal challenges to this.
What was this supposed to fix, and why, with the only province that you consulted saying they actually didn't like this idea, was a decision made to move ahead with it? It sounds as though it's more than just an administrative issue, at least when we see the quote from the Ontario minister.
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Sure, and certainly I've seen the quote in the newspapers from the Ontario ministry. The fact is that this is a facilitative amendment. This is a federal act of Parliament. It was brought to our attention that there was a component of the act that could serve as a barrier to some provinces.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
I just want to stop you there. Who brought that to your attention? Which provinces?
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In the conversations we had as part of a policy background, we were reminded by the Province of Ontario, in fact, that there was this provision in the federal act.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
Well, one can remind one of all sorts of provisions, but other than Ontario, which is on the record as saying that it doesn't actually support this change, what other provinces did you have conversations with?
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
My understanding is that we've had conversations with all the provinces about the prospect of a measure like this. We certainly had deeper background conversations, like I said, about some of the incentives for unfounded claims.
3:55 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
Why was there so little consultation with the provinces on a measure like this?
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Well, obviously something that is going into the budget process, going into the cabinet process, is subject to the confidentialities that go with that. This is in a budget bill, so it's to the government to decide what kind of background conversations they're going to have.
But like I said, this is a federal piece of legislation, and it's a facilitative amendment. Provinces could choose to or not introduce such residency requirements.
4 p.m.
Davenport, NDP
Many people are asking this question and are concerned about the real-life implications that a measure like this would have if taken up by the provinces. Why would the department or the government propose new powers for the provinces that they haven't actually asked for and, at least in the only province that's gone public, say they don't want? Why would the government do this?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Devinder Shory
Thank you, Mr. Cash.
Maybe the witness would like to address this later.