Evidence of meeting #85 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cost.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I'd like to build on the presentation from Mr. Montoya. He advanced the issue around contributions. He advanced the issue of the essence of why we're here today, which is to talk about an immigration policy, or law, if you will, that discriminates against a class of people.
How does it discriminate? In the case of Mr. Montoya, and others, but I'll use his case for today, he went through a process which clearly said that no one else in his family would have to undergo the application for immigration purposes except for his son, Nico, simply because he has been identified with having different abilities.
Canada has signed on to a whole variety of different covenants, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If we want to say that we're a country that respects these rights, how is it possible that we would have a law that clearly discriminates against people with disabilities?
On that premise, I will ask Mr. Montoya to expand on that point. He made it in his presentation, but I want him to expand on it. How can we reconcile that difference on the issue of rights?
10:30 a.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for the question, Ms. Kwan.
I would like to point out what my fellow witness, Mr. Bellissimo, spoke about, which was Hilewitz in 2005. It's not being applied as it should be. Currently, even with Hilewitz and with paragraph 38(1)(c), the charter isn't being applied as it should be, and neither is the United Nations convention that Canada ratified.
I think it's irreconcilable. Paragraph 38(1)(c) is flawed. Maybe it could work if we improved it, if we tweaked it here and there. We've had 12 years for it to be tweaked, and it has not been tweaked enough, so it hasn't been working. In the meantime, we are confronting an international breach of our commitments, and I think we need to look at that.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the different points of views and comments, and from the Canadian Bar Association, as always, they are very thoughtful and detailed with their brief.
In the series of recommendations you have presented to us in your document, Mr. Bellissimo, it lists the issues around the flaw of the current system as it stands. I now grant that you're right: the current system is hugely flawed. The question for me becomes, is it fixable? If we use the premise of our basic rights in recognizing human rights, I take the point of view that I don't think it's fixable.
We heard yesterday from a number of witnesses. In fact, in yesterday's presentations from the two panels, they were unanimous in saying it's not fixable. In my office I've received over 1,000 emails from people saying this section of the law needs to be repealed. Mr. Bellissimo, in your submission to us, on page 2 under “Priorities and Processes” it reads:
To deliver a successful immigration program, the need to protect public health and the integrity of the Canadian health care system must be balanced with the legitimate needs of migrants, in a manner consistent with Canadian Charter values and international human rights.... This is particularly important given the vulnerability of non-citizens with disabilities. The focus cannot be on prohibiting applicants with a medical condition from entering Canada.
On the basis of this paragraph alone—and I don't think I heard an answer from you when the question was asked about whether or not, aside from trying to fix the problem, on the issue of rights alone, should the government not entertain the idea of repealing this discriminatory policy and law?
10:30 a.m.
Honorary Executive Member, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you for the question.
There are multiple levels to that question. One, there's the distinction between health and social services. Much of what we've been hearing about in terms of the issues relate to social services. Health services would also be impacted by any repealment. Second, there is a threshold question with respect to the application of the charter to foreign nationals physically situated outside of Canada. That has not been overcome as of yet in the law, so that presents an additional challenge to determining the scope of how this law should move forward.
Also, there's the issue of whether this can be applied in a discriminatory fashion. Absolutely. Should it be? No. Could it be, if it was applied in the manner that Hilewitz taught the department and applicants to apply it, and following the recommendations that we have provided in our submissions? Absent a further study that dictates otherwise, I believe as of right now the law can function. It can be applied in a manner that is consistent with Canadian charter values and human rights standards.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I would argue that, and question that, on the very premise that a person with a different ability comes forward with an application for immigration, the entire family is flagged, and that one person who is flagged with a different ability has to undergo a different process. That in itself sets out a different standard that applies. Simply because of a disability, they have to undergo a different process. To me, that is already a violation of our basic human rights, the UN convention, our charter rights, and so on.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not that smart, but I know what I know from my heart, and I know what I know as human and humanity, and this applies. I believe our Canadian laws ought to reflect that. I think that's what Canadians want to see us do, as well.
With that, I will also submit that we have not taken into account the cost for government to go through all of this process every time someone makes an appeal to the Federal Court and so on. That costs the system. It costs not only in terms of staffing, but it jams up the system and creates a backlog, and you will all be very familiar with backlogs.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
That cost needs to be accommodated as well. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of this provision.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We have about four minutes before I'm expecting the bells to ring.
I'm going to go to Mr. Tabbara, but I'll just inform the committee of a couple of things before I turn to him.
One is a reminder that we will have the minister for one hour tomorrow at 12:15.
We'll be doing drafting instructions on Thursday. I'm going to suggest we start at 9:45 instead of 8:45 and do one hour of drafting instructions. Given that we've had a busy week with other things, you can take the morning. We'll do that one hour then.
For witnesses for the further Yazidi meetings, I'd like a deadline of Friday the 24th at noon. Today is Tuesday. We have until Friday at noon. We should have a summary of evidence on Thursday afternoon, so we have that, but you can now be thinking about that.
I'm going to suggest no meeting on the 28th; time off for good behaviour. On the 30th, we'll have two hours with Yazidi study witnesses. That's next Thursday. Then, on the 5th, we'll do another hour of Yazidi witnesses, if we need it. If we don't, we'll move right to instructions, but we have time for three hours of witnesses and instructions.
We have the minister coming on the 7th for supplementary estimates (B), and then we'll be considering this report on the 12th.
Ms. Rempel, go ahead.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I would like some clarity from the chair on the potential for the Auditor General to report to this committee on his findings today.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We will absolutely do that, because now we have some time in there for another meeting as well.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I just need to have a meeting cancelled, if that's a possibility.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It's still a possibility. I'm just trying to get the work we have on our agenda done before we rise, and this isn't quite as time sensitive as trying to get this work done. We will consider it.
The bells are ringing now, so unless I have unanimous consent, we need to end.
Are they 30-minute bells?
10:35 a.m.
A voice
Yes.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
All right.
Mr. Tabbara, we will be ending, but you have about five minutes.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry for the votes. It's just the nature of the job.
I'll try to share my time with Mr. Whalen, if I can quickly get through this.
Thank you for being here. My first question is for Mr. Montoya.
From your testimony, and with the committee going on, we hear a lot of witnesses saying that this is a two-class system. We heard from witnesses who have been here on temporary residence. They have contributed so much to Canada and paid their taxes. They feel they're good enough to be here, but maybe extended family members are not. They feel that Canada welcomes them to come and work; however, after their work is done, they are asked to leave. They feel that they are being discriminated against.
Mr. Montoya, in your testimony you mentioned the contributions that you, your wife, and your children have made to Canada. How do you feel this is discriminatory between temporary residents and permanent residents?
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
Temporary residents in Canada who have been accepted here as workers and are paying taxes.... I think the way the law is now, their taxes are worth less than the taxes of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, because no Canadian citizen or permanent resident is challenged and charged when their social or health services exceed the average. Maybe I'm not right, but I think that if you are paying taxes, it's a system of solidarity where everyone pays into it and when you need social services or medical services, you receive them. It's what a society does to help those in need at a certain moment, because we never know when we will need these services. Charging people who are requesting permanent residency and who have already been here for years, sometimes, paying taxes, because their taxes are not worth as much or are not as valued, is a clear discriminatory two-tier system, not to mention the fact that the whole section of disabled persons are also seen as less valuable.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you very much.
I know we talked about avenues where you can apply if an application was denied under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Can you elaborate on other cases? From what I've been hearing under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, a lot of cases are still not approved and it's a strenuous process to go through.
Mr. Bellissimo, can you elaborate on that? Should humanitarian and compassionate grounds be looked at further and assessed in a different manner, or should we just have a different system altogether?
10:40 a.m.
Honorary Executive Member, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
To Ms. Desloges' point, I think applicants far too often go to the humanitarian and compassionate considerations where they can challenge the actual finding as at first instance, so you need not necessarily go there. Insofar as how that works in terms of a discretionary process, it's very challenging for applicants, absolutely. There's also a certain limit that is allowed every year and that also factors into the number of decisions made.
I just want to make one quick point.
