Citizenship and Immigration committee  Again, that's not part of the bill. The bill is facilitative, and it doesn't compel the provinces to introduce such a measure. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to speculate about the future actions of the government in terms of whether it would encourage provinces to move in a c

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I could start and my colleague can follow up. I think for low-income individuals there is a range of supports through the tax system federally or provincially—low-income tax credits, GST rebates—a large range of benefits that would apply to all Canadians. It would be variable in

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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 p

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's right.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No. The provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that we were referring to applies to temporary residents, international students, and visitors.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Again, this is a facilitative amendment. If a province or territory so chose to, it could introduce a minimum residency requirement. The government has carved out protected persons— those with a founded refugee claim as well as victims—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Well, under the design, if a province imposes such a residency requirement—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Right, so they are claimants until they are determined to be—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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 g

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's a good point. You're right that those classes of individuals—temporary foreign workers, international students, and visitors—in order to receive a visa, would have to satisfy a visa officer that they are able to sustain themselves and their dependants. That's part of the v

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's right. As part of the visa process they make an undertaking that they are able to—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's correct. There's a broader set of categories that wouldn't have a residency period imposed on them and that's certain Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have mobility rights in Canada under the charter. You were talking about protected persons and both categorie