Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 23 - Evidence - November 6, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:27 a. m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 5, 7, 17, 20, and 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget. TOPIC: Division 5.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, and I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Good morning, I am Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Hello, I'm Pana Merchant, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I will remind you that we are dealing with the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 5 of Part 4 of Bill C-43, and that we have two sessions today. In the first one, we have two witness groups. I will invite them to make their presentations in a moment in the order that has been agreed. I will remind colleagues that this session will end no later than 11:30. With that, I invite Marie Chen, Lawyer with the Income Security Advocacy Centre to present first.
Marie Chen, Lawyer, Income Security Advocacy Centre: Good morning, senators. Thank you for inviting us here. You should have received a detailed presentation. I will not be reading everything in it.
There is a description of what ISAC is in our presentation, but going straight to what we're talking about, clauses 172 and 173 of this bill, what does it do?
What the clauses propose to do is amend the national standard in the Canada Social Transfer contained in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
The transfer is directed at helping fund provincial social programs, including social assistance. The national standard is a condition for the Canada Social Transfer. Provinces cannot impose a minimum period of residency to restrict eligibility for social assistance without incurring a penalty of a risk of loss or reduction of their transfer funding.
Because of the wording of the amendments, it leaves certain people outside of the protection of the standard. The people that it excludes from the protection of the standard include immigrants, refugee claimants and people without regularized status, so the amendment impacts on certain groups of people based on their immigration status.
The bill will impact primarily refugee claimants arriving in Canada. It's not in dispute. The federal government has as much confirmed that and it should be noted that it affects all refugee claimants, not only the ones that are unsuccessful. It's everyone that has filed a refugee claim and is waiting for a decision, whether or not they are ultimately successful or unsuccessful.
Refugee claimants are a particularly vulnerable group of people. They leave their homes. They flee persecution, war and civil unrest. Many are traumatized by their experiences. They left behind their homes, belongings, livelihoods, may not speak English or French and have to struggle in an unfamiliar environment. Many refugees are additionally disadvantaged because of who they are. They may be women, children or members of a racialized group. Many have nothing other than what they came with and have no means of support. Some may be eligible for work permits, but even then they have to wait for it to be issued. Those who are not eligible will have no means of support. In these circumstances, social assistance is critical for their survival.
Canada has various human rights obligations under international law and our Charter. As a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Canada has the obligation to protect refugees, so people who have made refugee claims in Canada are legally entitled to be here while they access their refugee determination system. We are not talking about people who are considered illegal. These are people who are entitled to be in Canada under the Refugee Convention seeking asylum.
Canada is also obligated under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to recognize the right of everyone to social security and to an adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing. Canada has an obligation to guarantee these rights without discrimination.
Our Charter protects against cruel and unusual treatment, so all refugee claimants are entitled to be treated humanely, fairly and equitably under our laws. The bill does the opposite.
What is the impact of the bill? The bill proposes to allow provinces to take away the most basic and minimal form of assistance from this very vulnerable group of people. By its nature, social assistance is a last resort income program meant to cover bare minimum needs, subsistence. Social assistance benefits across Canada are extremely low. They fall way below any measure of the poverty line. In Ontario, for example, social assistance is about two fifths of what is considered the poverty line. We're not even talking poverty line, but two fifths of the poverty line. This is the amount we're talking about.
Taking away this critical lifeline of social assistance is harmful, cruel and inhumane. Without social assistance, refugee claimants will have no means of support and will become destitute, facing hunger and homelessness. They will suffer the stresses and desperation of trying to meet their basic needs of food, clothing and housing with no income. Their physical and mental health will inevitably deteriorate. Those with health concerns will have no access to prescription drugs. They will be forced to resort to charities and shelters, which are already overstretched to capacity.
Poor health also leads to increased use of emergency services. We know that it's much more expensive to provide for shelters than it is to provide assistance for persons to seek housing. These increased costs will be downloaded to provinces, so we're not talking about cost savings at all.
This committee, in its report In From the Margins, has acknowledged that refugee claimants are particularly disadvantaged in terms of housing and income. Their poverty will be worsened by this bill.
There are also long-term costs. Refugees are future Canadians with the opportunity to become productive members of society. Many claimants are eventually accepted through the refugee determination system or other immigration processes available to them. They already face challenges with resettlement and integration into our society. Preventing them from access to social assistance will create additional barriers for social inclusion and their integration.
While this bill proposes to leave it to the provinces to choose to enact a minimum residence requirement, we believe that the federal government bears direct responsibility. It has introduced this bill. It is targeted at refugees. It has whittled down the national standard. The federal government is pushing this particular bill. As far as we know, there has been no provincial initiative for this provision, and there have been no consultations with respect to this very important piece of legislation.
By removing the restriction on a minimum residence requirement, we think that the federal government is in effect condoning and promoting the position of a minimum residence requirement. They're saying, ''Feel free. Go ahead. You can do this without penalty because when you impose a minimum residence requirement, your transfer does not get reduced in any way.''
In my paper, we talk about the implications of a weakened Canada Social Transfer national standard. We believe it impacts the strength of Canada as a federal country that's made up of more than just the fact that we're provinces and territories. We believe it undermines the importance of the Canada Social Transfer in poverty reduction and in ensuring that everyone in Canada has a minimum quality standard of living.
It undermines the ability for the federal government to ensure consistency, accountability and equity in the delivery of social programs.
The Canada Social Transfer is very important and a huge amount of funding that's earmarked for social programs, and this will deteriorate, undermine and increase rather than reduce poverty. Subject to any questions, these are the highlights.
The Chair: I will now turn to Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees.
Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you for inviting us to share our concerns. I would say that our members are feeling enormous consternation in the face of these provisions, the impact they would have on our membership, and the people our members serve.
I hope you have a copy of the brief that we submitted. I will pull out some of the highlights from that.
Marie talked about refugees as being among the most vulnerable, which is certainly true. I would say that refugee claimants, in their first weeks and months in Canada, are at their most vulnerable time. That is when they most need assistance in the form of social assistance. That is particularly the case since changes were made to the refugee determination system in December 2012, which means that there is tremendous stress and pressure on the claimants to deal with the obligations of their refugee determination claim in the first weeks that they arrive in Canada. It is particularly important for them to have access to social assistance.
The second point that I want to make is the concern about the targeting of refugee claimants. Although they are not named in the bill, they're clearly the ones who would be most affected by these provisions. Even though they're not named, the bill carves out certain categories of people, namely refugee claimants, who can be subject to discrimination. We believe that Canada should be doing the opposite actually and giving refugees, because of their vulnerabilities, extra protection rather than subjecting or exposing them to this particularly harsh treatment.
I also want to talk about human rights obligations. Marie already mentioned Canada's obligations under our international human rights treaties that we have signed onto. In particular, I would like to highlight the Convention on the Rights of the Child and mention that children would be affected by the loss of access to social assistance. Under that convention, Canada has significant obligations to children generally to ensure a right to benefit from social security. Particularly for refugees, Canada must take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status has appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance.
I want to talk now about the impact on refugee claimants and on the community sector, particularly the organizations that the CCR represents. Earlier this year, the CCR concluded some research on the impacts of the changes to the refugee determination system. We prepared two reports, one of which looks at the system from the point of view of claimants. We interviewed a number of claimants about their experiences. We followed up with another report Keeping the door open: NGOs and the new refugee claim process, where we looked at the perspectives of NGOs, the organizations that most directly serve refugee claimants.
What comes out of that research is the very high level of stress that both claimants and organizations are under. We heard from the claimants about how the system was so fast and the demand so great that they were under tremendous pressure. That's something we need to keep in mind when thinking about telling them, in addition to everything else they have to go through, that they must expect to be living on the street, potentially, or desperately trying to find shelter and food for themselves and their children.
We also heard from NGOs who serve refugee claimants that they are under a tremendous stress partly as a matter of funding. There is not any federal funding to these organizations that provide direct services to claimants. More and more the system depends upon claimants providing things like translation for all their documents, which in many cases the NGOs end up having to do, and finding shelter and assistance with all the basics that people have to deal with.
Some of our members and some of the organizations we surveyed run refugee shelters. They offer a bed and support for refugee claimants. They fund themselves through contributions from the social assistance that refugee claimants currently have access to. If that is denied, the whole model of the refugee shelters will be called into question and, as Marie said, there's a real risk that they would find themselves in municipal shelters.
I want to conclude by talking about the United Kingdom experience because that gives us an idea of what we could face in Canada if we go down this road. In 2003, the U.K. had new legislation that meant certain claimants would be denied basic state support. There are a number of reports. I highlight in this document a report by the British Refugee Council called Hungry and homeless. I can tell you that it makes chilling reading, realizing what happens to refugees who arrive and are left without any measure of support whatsoever — people living on the streets, sleeping outside NGOs or government agencies. It's a particularly obvious concern for single refugee women, who are very vulnerable in those circumstances, sleeping in rough environments or potentially having to sleep with strangers who offer them a bed in their home. That, of course, exposes them to a lot of risk.
In 2005, the U.K. House of Lords ruled that excluding some claimants from state support amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the European Union Convention on Human Rights because it denied even the barest necessities of life. This decision by the U.K. court was referenced by the Federal Court of Canada in finding that the Canadian government's cuts to refugee health care constituted cruel and unusual treatment in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That raises significant questions about whether denying refugee claimants social assistance in this manner would also lead to a conclusion that it was cruel and unusual treatment in violation of the Charter.
The Chair: Thank you both. I have allowed you both to take a little extra time because of the nature of your presentations. I would ask you to be efficient with regard to your answers and summarize quickly as I would like to get all the questions on the record.
Senator Eggleton: I must say that I agree this bill undermines the work of this committee in terms of the committee's report, In from the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. It also undermines our international agreements, particularly the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the right to everyone to social security including adequate food, clothing, housing, et cetera. These are all things that Canada has signed onto. This proposal is downright mean-spirited. It's bad policy.
Do you know what percentage of refugee claimants receive social assistance?
Ms. Dench: No.
Senator Eggleton: There is no statistic on that. As people who work in this field, what do you think it is? Is it the majority or half?
Ms. Dench: I would certainly think the majority. Some people come with money, perhaps a few thousand dollars with them, or some people have family members and stay with them. In my view, probably most receive assistance, at least for a few weeks and months until they get a work permit.
Senator Eggleton: How long are they here usually before they submit their application for social assistance?
Ms. Dench: There are two ways that people make claims. One is at the border, either the airport or the land border, in which case they would need to apply right away. Also, people make a claim inland, but that process changed in December 2012.
Senator Eggleton: That's the refugee claim. I asked about social assistance.
Ms. Dench: Yes, but you can't get social assistance until you have made the refugee claim. We dealt with this in our report: You have people who want to make a refugee claim, but they can't make their refugee claim until they have their paperwork ready. They have to do their paperwork without access to social assistance; so they don't have revenue or access to health care. Someone might be sick or have a heart condition but they have to first fill in all the paperwork, which is considerable, before they can get access to assistance.
Senator Eggleton: It can be a fair bit of time that they struggle without resources — food on the table, clothes on their backs and a roof over their heads.
Ms. Dench: The organizations serving them find that it's putting a stress on them because they have to support them, even though there is no money to support them.
Senator Eggleton: The majority of these claims currently on file, 89,000, are in the province of Ontario. Do you have any idea how Ontario feels about this? No? Okay.
Part of the rationale put forward by the federal government for doing this is, one, cost saving and, two, reducing the attractiveness of Canada as a place to make a refugee claim for not legitimate but fraudulent purposes. What are your comments on those?
Ms. Chen: I would say that it's a false economy. There is no cost savings associated with this. In fact, it would increase the costs because poverty will increase and this committee has acknowledged that there are costs associated with poverty. With increasing poverty there will be increased costs.
We know that accessing shelters is very expensive. To house someone in a shelter is much more expensive than providing them with housing assistance to access housing. We know that accessing emergency services is very expensive, as opposed to ensuring people are healthy and don't have to access these kinds of services. We know that poverty leads to ill health and poor health outcomes. All of these factors spiral into additional costs and there is also a social cost. Things like social integration and social inclusion are not going to go away. In fact, they will increase, so there are actually no cost savings. In fact there are more; the costs will increase.
Senator Eggleton: What is the fraudulent aspect of this?
Ms. Chen: We have checks and balances. The federal government recently changed the refugee system to purportedly make it have more integrity so we're supposed to already have that system for checks and balances. This bill has nothing to do with that. And I would dispute that there are a lot of false refugees or false claims. In fact, the statistics show the opposite. This bill has nothing to do with that because it makes no distinction between people who are successful or not successful. It applies to every single person who comes into Canada who makes a refugee claim.
Ms. Dench: Our concern is for people who are refugees and who would be impacted by this provision. Also, in terms of deterrence, I think you can again look to the U.K. experience and to the research done on that very question, looking at whether people say, ''Let's go to the U.K. because the living is good there.'' Their research showed that actually most people didn't know where they were going and they didn't know what the laws would be in that country. It's not based on fact to make assumptions like that about deterrence.
Senator Merchant: I always think that the single most important decision that people in the world have to make is to leave their own country, leave their families and the things that are familiar to them and set out to find a place somewhere on this planet where maybe they can live a little more peacefully and make a life for their families. My family came from Greece. Their situation was not the same but I know how much they struggled even with family to come to in Regina because they had five children when they came here.
I would first like to ask what percentage of refugees who come are women and how many just children? Sometimes we hear of people putting their children on a boat somewhere to get them out of harm's way. I'm also concerned that the provinces have not been consulted at all in making this decision.
I don't want to ask too many questions but maybe you can help me with those.
Ms. Dench: In terms of the percentage that is women, I don't have those statistics. Unfortunately, we found it increasingly difficult in the last few years to get good statistics from CIC and Canada Border Services Agency. In the past, when we've seen them, it's slightly fewer than 50 per cent that are women who are making refugee claims. Certainly there are quite a lot of children who do come and obviously they are a particular concern.
Ms. Chen: I will address the question of the consultation of provinces.
When we started working on the precursor to this bill, which was the private member's bill, Bill C-585, we made inquiries about whether there was a provincial initiative, what precipitated this, and our inquiries found that people were caught by surprise. We could not find anyone who could tell us that there was consultation.
I would suggest that, if you look at the evolution of this bill or these provisions coming from a private member's bill and then being transposed word for word from a private member's bill to clauses 172 and 173, there was no consultation. It started off as a private member's bill. We think that the process speaks to the lack of consultation and it begs the question. The question of what precipitated this should be asked of the federal government, as well as who was consulted, if anyone, and if no one was consulted why not. This is a very important change to a national standard in a federal act with respect to funds that are meant to ensure consistency and accountability in the delivery of social programs towards poverty reduction across Canada.
This is a hugely important provision and it's coming from a private member's bill and now in an omnibus budget bill that we have an issue with in terms of the process. Where is the consultation? We know that the committee hearings will be very brief. There is no room. It's done.
I would suggest that the committee throw this back to the federal government and ask these questions because as far as we know there have been no consultations and as far as we know, given the way the bill has come forward, there has been no consultation.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentations. It's certainly very thought provoking.
I'm going to speak to you actually because I think someone needs to uphold the provinces in your presentation. My province is crying out for immigration. We want immigration and we would welcome refugees. I'm not certain about the way you've extrapolated the scenarios. I don't think that government that is closer to the people is actually going to do some of the things that you've said. In fact, I think it might be a better place for refugees. To be frank with you, I think the closer the government is to the people the more compassionate and the more open the provinces are.
I want to put that forward and perhaps have you think a bit about how you are supposing the provinces will treat people. I really have to defend our provinces on this.
Ms. Dench: I would like to speak to that and thank you for the question. I don't think from our perspective that we're assuming that provinces will cut off, as you say. I think it's not in the interest of provinces and that's certainly something that our members will be raising with the various provincial governments.
It's perhaps also worth looking back to the experience in British Columbia. In 1995 the British Columbian government imposed a 90-day residency requirement, which was eventually struck down or withdrawn. They also added an exception for refugee claimants, I think recognizing their particular needs.
I agree that we don't necessarily assume that this is going to happen but I guess what is before us today is the decision about whether the federal law should be changed to allow a residency requirement to be imposed on certain categories, notably refugee claimants.
I would ask you to consider, for example, if you had a different law here and it said that the provinces may not impose residency requirement for men, then what are you doing? You're inviting the provinces. You're saying that we think it's fair enough to impose a residency requirement for women. They're not actually doing it but they're saying this is a group of people who could be subjected to these requirements.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I take your point, but, once again, I tend to err on the side of thinking that governments are fairly responsible, especially provincial governments. I can't see people doing that kind of thing, but I take your point.
Ms. Dench: Then what is the point of these provisions?
Senator Stewart Olsen: As I've said, I think it's actually better to have the provinces. Some provinces may actually be very encouraging. I don't want to get into an argument. I'm just asking you to think about how you are supposing that everything will be terrible. In fact, I think it could be better.
Ms. Chen: I think it's more about the risk, the opening of the door, as Ms. Dench has said. We're not presupposing that the provinces will enact minimum residency requirements, but what we do know is that, with financial constraints, if there is a door open that will allow provinces to save money, things have been done. We know that measures have been introduced, and this provision allows the provinces to do it in a way that impacts a very vulnerable group of people. That is our concern.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I certainly take your point. I have a lot of faith in the people of the provinces, and I think that, if that were to happen, there would be, as in British Columbia, an enormous hue and cry that would say, ''No, we are open to refugees. We treat them well.'' I am not where you are, but I do ask you to consider the good faith of our provinces.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your presentations. I see here that Bill C-43 proposes an amendment. This is for Marie Chen. You have written here about a proposed amendment that will allow provinces to impose minimum residency requirements on certain groups of immigrants, refugee claimants and people without regularized status, to limit their eligibility for social assistance, without any CST funding. The amendment impacts certain groups of people based solely on their immigration status. So who are those people? Can you give me an example to explain this a little bit?
Ms. Chen: So the bill works in the negative. Currently, the national standard says that you cannot impose a minimum residency requirement for everyone. The bill says, ''Well, you cannot impose a minimum residency requirement for Canadian citizens, for permanent residents, for protected people, for people on temporary work permits or residency permits, or victims of trafficking. So it's what the categories leave out. People are not included in the protection. People who are not Canadian residents in those categories are people who are refugee claimants, people who don't have regularized status, people who are waiting for permanent residence claims to be processed, even though they're legally in Canada. So it's anyone else who doesn't fall under the categories that are listed in the amendments. So it works in the negative.
Senator Seth: Okay. In your opinion, what is the minimum residency requirement that has been recommended? Do you think it could be the purpose of this provision to prevent abuse, fraud, et cetera? Can you elaborate on this point, please?
Ms. Chen: The bill doesn't specify any minimum residency requirement. The bill leaves it open to provinces. I believe a question was asked earlier around it being directed at abuse of the system, and I believe we answered that earlier. Our answer was that the bill really has nothing to do with abuse of the system because we already have checks and balances in our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and also in the various provincial welfare acts. We have very strong checks and balances. When people in need apply, there are a lot of checks, and you won't get social assistance until you satisfy all of the conditions. So there are already very stringent requirements to be able to qualify. The bill really has nothing do with whether someone is fraudulent or not fraudulent. It is irrelevant.
Senator Seth: So the fact that there is no minimum requirement is being amended.
Ms. Chen: The bill doesn't suggest a minimum residency requirement. It leaves it up to the provinces. The provinces could, theoretically, choose to impose a three-month residency requirement, a six-month residency requirement, a one- year residency requirement. There is no limit.
Senator Seth: Can I ask more?
The Chair: You can have one more question.
Senator Seth: Besides the U.K., has there been any other country that has put a restriction in place, and what was the after-effect?
Ms. Dench: I think that it is generally understood around the world that refugee claimants, on arrival, do need state support. In many European countries, it's not offered directly through social assistance, but, rather, the national or federal government or local government will provide special state support for refugee claimants. In many countries, the amount offered is very low, and so, in many of the European countries, you hear complaints. In Germany, for example, a couple of years ago, there was a court case because the amount of money that claimants were getting hadn't risen over several years, and it was just not enough for people to survive on. The court said that was inhumane.
There is a whole campaign in the U.K, currently, because the amount of money that people are getting is not enough for people to survive on. That's very controversial, but, in the research that I've done, I haven't seen any countries in Europe that were leaving refugee claimants without any kind of support. I certainly hope that we're not going to go in that direction in Canada, and that's partly why I'm here today.
Senator Seth: Thank you kindly for your answer.
The Chair: For the record, when you gave examples of times that a province could impose, the province could declare zero time.
Ms. Chen: That's correct. The province could decide not to introduce measures.
The Chair: I wanted to complete the cycle there.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentations. Some of the questions I was going to ask were answered through Senator Seth's questions, but I'm curious about the statistics given to us. It says here that Ontario receives 54 per cent of the refugees. If you look at the statistics, Alberta only gets 6 per cent. If ever there was a place where they needed workers, it should be Alberta. I'm surprised they chose Ontario. Do you have any idea why?
Ms. Dench: That's an excellent question and probably something that would be worth researching in depth. I think what we've seen in the last few years is this shift towards a higher percentage of the refugee claimants being in Ontario. That is partly because of the difficulties of the refugee claim process and the demands that are put on support and having available expert support. If there aren't that many claimants in Alberta or Saskatchewan, then it makes it more difficult to pursue a claim in those areas. If you need to make a claim, you might try to go to another province or be directed to another province. One of the things we found in the research we were doing was that a number of the organizations were dealing with claimants who were outside the area that they were covering. For example, in Halifax they're getting calls from New Brunswick because there aren't services available in New Brunswick to help people with their refugee claims.
So a way to address that would be to provide better support for refugee claimants across the country so that they can go ahead with their claim and feel that they are getting the right support and advice.
Senator Enverga: Not that I want people to go from Ontario to Alberta, but would it be more advisable for your agency to help people to go to Alberta and other provinces that need valuable job support?
The Chair: I'm going to interrupt here. We're dealing with specific elements of the budget bill, so I'm going to have us stick to the issue of the amendment. If you can answer on that that's fine, but we're not getting into the general issue of why people choose one province over another.
Ms. Dench: Sure, but I think it offers an opportunity to comment on the impacts of this provision in relation to refugee claimants who are in Canada for a long time, because we've been talking about people on arrival, and I think that's where they will be more affected, but in terms of interprovincial movement, they could also be affected.
For example, we find that there are some refugee claimants who are not able to find jobs in the province where they are, and they hear there are lots of jobs in Alberta. They would like to go to Alberta and see if they can find a job there. If Alberta has provision in place that says they're going to have a minimum residency requirement, they might say, ''I can't afford to risk going to Alberta to find a job, because what happens if I don't find a job immediately? I don't have any way of surviving.'' So it doesn't help with the interprovincial movement towards where the jobs are.
Senator Enverga: Mr. Chair, the reason I'm asking about this is because with this provision giving more power to the provinces, maybe Alberta will open up. That's what I was thinking. Maybe that's the reason why this bill was drafted, to make sure that our refugees are taken care of.
Ms. Chen: The bill doesn't give provinces more power to impose a residency requirement. Provinces can already do this. What the national standard says is that if you do that, you will lose some of your social transfer.
The national standard is meant to ensure consistency across Canada in the delivery of social assistance. At this point, any province can decided to impose a minimum residency requirement for anyone, but what they will risk is a loss of all or part of their social transfer.
It's not about providing provinces with any power. It's about deciding how provinces and the federal government deliver services in a consistent, equitable and accountable way. It's not about providing the provinces with power.
The Chair: I understand. That's where I wanted to go as opposed to the larger issues of why one might choose.
Just parenthetically, one would think that given Alberta's claim for need of people, they might be the least likely to impose measures, but the points made are correct. That's where we wanted to go.
I will now turn to Senator Chaput.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Ladies, I feel that your concerns and worries are well-founded. But Bill C-43 is going to be passed, which means this amendment will be too. It is just a matter of time.
Since you are standing up for the rights of refugees so well, and since this amendment says that it will be up to the provinces to decide whether or not they will impose such requirements, do you intend to discuss the matter with the provinces by the end of the year? Certainly with the provinces that take in the greatest numbers of refugees. As my colleague said, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta take in a lot.
Ms. Dench: The Canadian Council for Refugees has member organizations all across Canada, in all provinces, and this question is certainly on the agenda. The issue has come to us quite quickly. You will agree that we have not had much time to organize meetings. But I think we can count on our members to engage provincial authorities. Our national consultation will be held at the end of November and this issue will be on the agenda. We are going to discuss how to react to this amendment to the bill, if and when the bill is passed.
[English]
Ms. Chen: If I might add, ISAC has been part of the organizing around this bill, and we have been working with a range of health groups, community groups that not only deal with refugees but are concerned about poverty reduction, community workers, service providers. We know that we will take this further, and we will continue to do so if this bill is passed.
We're hoping that this committee will make some recommendations, to at least put it on the record that this is not a good idea. This is bad news for all kinds of people on all kinds of levels, but, yes, we will take this further.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being before the committee once again.
I share your frustration in the minimum residency requirements for refugees being buried in a 460-page bill. Yesterday, this committee was dealing with the so-called budget bill. We dealt with the DNA data bank, the public health agency, and today we are dealing with refugees, none of which, I believe, should be in a budget document, so I certainly share your concerns.
When I've been reading some of comments that Minister Alexander has made recently particularly related to the refugee health program, I found there was some confusion in whether it was a refugee or an immigrant. Could you clarify for the committee what is a refugee, because when I was reading it, he was almost transposing the two terms. Could you clarify for the committee what is a refugee and what is the situation facing them when they come to Canada?
Ms. Dench: It is often confusing, and it depends partly on the context. Legally speaking, a refugee is a person who meets the definition established in the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It's an international definition which is also adopted in Canadian law. Canadian law also has some other provisions which are a little bit broader, so we also use the term ''protected person,'' which covers both the narrow refugee conditions as well as slightly broader conditions.
One thing that is important to emphasize is that a person who comes to Canada and makes a refugee claim may already be a refugee. The determination process is to find out if they are a refugee. The determination process does not make the person a refugee.
When we talk about claimants, we don't know whether they're refugees, but our obligations towards them are already there, so it would be false to say that this is not going to affect refugees because it only affects refugee claimants because, as we know, many of the refugee claimants are found to be refugees.
Senator Cordy: So when we talk about the definition for ''refugee,'' which is a UN definition — it's also in Canadian law — when we change this, it has a tremendous effect on refugees. We know that the government and the majority on this committee voted in favour of eliminating the refugee health program, and we know that this week that was overturned at the court level so that they will be reinstated.
I agree with Senator Chaput that it is likely that the majority on this committee would vote to pass this portion of the bill and that in the Senate it will likely pass with the majority.
Do you believe that, in fact, this could be challenged in the courts as the refugee health program was challenged in the courts?
Ms. Dench: Obviously, there are some parallels which I have alluded to in terms of the U.K. experience and how the Federal Court of Canada made reference to that decision in finding that the health cuts were cruel and unusual treatment. I think one of the questions would be: What happens next in terms of whether or not a province does impose a residency requirement? I'm not sure you could go to court simply on the basis of these changes to the law, although, I'm not a lawyer, maybe Marie will disagree with me on that.
I would also like to mention the concern around public support for refugees. One of our concerns is not only whether or not these provisions are actually implemented, but also whether they lead, at a provincial level, to certain candidates in provincial elections saying, ''This is what we will do,'' and raising hostility towards refugees.
We know that this is a reality that we have seen in many countries around the world, how refugees can be used for political purposes when it comes to elections. That is a very dangerous road to be going down. I think we are lucky in Canada to have a strong tradition of being proud of supporting refugees, proud to protect refugees, but some of that has been called into question in the last few years, which is why, from our perspective, it is more important than ever that all of us — all of our leaders and all of our citizens — stand firm in terms of articulating the importance of protecting refugees.
Ms. Chen: I would say that if a residency requirement is imposed by any province, a legal challenge could be supported on the basis of our Charter on the violation of section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person; section 12, which guarantees against cruel and unusual treatment, which the federal health cuts case was granted on; and I would say section 15 as well, equality rights. You're denying a group of people social assistance benefits simply on the basis of who they are. That is discrimination.
It's troubling that we would need to challenge in court the costs associated with having to bring a court challenge. This is a very vulnerable group of people. It's very expensive to launch a court challenge; and the court itself, as a forum for these issues, is to me a last-resort forum. I think that we should be dealing with these issues before they happen. We should be preventing it. We should be proactive in preventing it, rather than reacting and having to file in court to challenge a law that is unfair and inhumane.
Senator Eggleton: The national standard that is being proposed here — Canadian citizens, permanent residents, victims of human trafficking who hold a temporary resident permit and protected persons — what is your take on these last two categories? Are we suggesting that people who are victims of human trafficking are one form of refugee that's okay, but other forms of refugee who may come from a war-torn country — Syria, Sudan, Congo, whatever — are not? What is your take on these last two?
Ms. Dench: My comment on the temporary resident permit for victims of trafficking would be that it exposes a gap in the law. Certainly, we at the Canadian Council for Refugees would like to see something formally in the law to ensure that victims of trafficking do receive protection in Canada, but there isn't anything in the law currently. There are some ministerial guidelines which suggest that victims of trafficking should have access to a temporary resident permit.
It raises a question to me about putting into law a measure which exists only at a guideline level. What happens if a future minister changes those guidelines or withdraws them altogether? What happens to that provision?
I certainly think that victims of trafficking should have protection. We have a number of issues with access to those temporary resident permits, and in fact changes to the law have made it that certain people who are victims of trafficking can't even get access to those temporary resident permits. So there are a number of gaps in that area.
Senator Eggleton: Who are protected persons?
Ms. Dench: Sorry. That is the definition, the wording that exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and that protected person covers people who meet the refugee definition according to the convention, as well as certain other categories. So people who have been found to be at risk to their life or a torture can also meet the ''protected person'' definition. When you see ''protected person'' in these kinds of legal documents, what they mean is ''refugee.''
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dench and Ms. Chen, for being here. I think you have articulated your positions very clearly and well. I think we all understand the positions you've brought forward.
In this session, from Finance Canada, we have Daniel MacDonald, who is the Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations Division; and we have Mark Davidson, Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I understand, Mr. Davidson, that you will be making a presentation. Would you, please proceed.
[Translation]
Mark Davidson, Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. My name is Mark Davidson, and I am Director General of International and Intergovernmental Relations at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I am accompanied by my colleague at Finance Canada, Daniel MacDonald.
[English]
We are here today to answer any technical questions you may have related to the changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that are contained in Part 4, Division 5 of Bill C-43.
Overall, and almost uniquely, the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act seek to provide provinces and territories greater flexibility to introduce a minimum period of residence before most foreign nationals can access social assistance in their jurisdictions. Provincial and territorial governments have the constitutional jurisdiction over social assistance, and the proposed amendments fully respect this jurisdiction. It's therefore up to each province and territory to determine the eligibility for social assistance benefits. This also means that should they choose to introduce a residency requirement for foreign nationals, the provinces and territories would determine the length of the residency period.
Currently, under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, provinces and territories cannot impose a minimum period of residence on the receipt of social assistance without a reduction in their Canada Social Transfer payments. The proposed amendments to the FPFAA would provide provinces and territories with greater flexibility by removing this impediment with respect to foreign nationals.
[Translation]
To be clear, these changes do not apply to Canadian citizens, permanent residents, protected persons — i.e., refugees —, and victims of human trafficking who hold valid temporary resident permits.
Under the proposed changes, should provinces and territories choose to introduce a residency requirement, most foreign nationals could be subject to a minimum period of residence. This includes temporary foreign workers, international students, visitors and asylum claimants.
[English]
It is important to note that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to obtain a visitor visa, study or work permit, all foreign nationals must demonstrate that they can support themselves and their dependants financially for the duration of their stay in Canada. The proposed amendments to the FPFAA align with this requirement.
In effect, these measures would provide the provinces and territories with some additional flexibility to establish minimum periods of residence for foreign nationals to qualify for social assistance, which is in their jurisdiction under the Constitution, without a consequent reduction in the Canada Social Transfer payments.
These provisions would provide provinces and territories with additional tools to shape their social assistance benefit regimes should they themselves choose to take advantage of them.
Thank you. My colleague and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will open up the floor beginning with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: My first question is what precipitated this bill? Who is asking for it and why and who has been consulted?
Mr. Davidson: Senator, this adjustment to the authorities or to the lack of penalty to the province for the residency requirements in the FPFAA came up during conversations we had with the Government of Ontario in the development of policy responses to refugee reform, so we had a number of conversations with the Government of Ontario when we were looking at the very generous benefits that Canada provided to asylum claimants in the past, and we were trying to identify whether there are adjustments that we should be making in order to discourage inappropriate asylum claims. So that conversation included multiple conversations with the Province of Ontario in particular, given, as you've said yourselves earlier today, a significant percentage of these individuals are actually in Ontario.
During that conversation, the Province of Ontario reminded us that there is a provision in the FPFAA, in the federal law, that limits the ability of provincial governments to make this policy choice in their own jurisdiction, or at least would penalize the province if they made that choice. As time has gone on, we've looked again at the FPFAA and thought it was appropriate for the federal government to remove that penalty in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Eggleton: So the Government of Ontario has asked for this?
Mr. Davidson: I wouldn't say the Government of Ontario specifically asked for this, but certainly it has come up during conversations we had with them in the recent past.
Senator Eggleton: You say in your comments that the provinces would not be penalized in this matter in terms of reduction of their social transfer payments. The chair said earlier that maybe Ontario will decide not to have any. What's the point of all of this? If in fact the government is saying it wants to save costs, it wants to cut down on illegitimate refugee claimants drawing on the public treasury, how is that going to happen unless you start to use this definition in terms of the transfer payments when you define what the population is for transfer payment purposes?
Mr. Davidson: Let me just clarify. This provision will have no impact on the Canada Social Transfer payment in terms of the amount of monies that flow, and perhaps I could turn to my colleague to underline that point.
Daniel MacDonald, Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations Division, Finance Canada: Absolutely. The Canada Social Transfer is essentially a block transfer that is provided to provinces and territories to provide support in the area of post-secondary education, social assistance, social programming and child care.
The amounts that are provided are provided as notional allocations so it respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this area, so the notional allocations are set out as to what the federal contribution is. The provinces and territories are able to spend the amounts in the areas according to their own priorities. This provision does not affect what is received by provinces through their allocation in the Canada Social Transfer.
Senator Eggleton: It may not at this point, but it could in future if it becomes the definition for transfer payments. Once you have it in legislation, it's quite possible it could be used for that.
If Ontario says, ''Okay, we're not going to impose this, or zero days,'' then you're saying that the Province of Ontario won't be out any funds — or any province for that matter — as a result of that. They will still get federal social transfer funds for refugees right from day one if they choose to do that?
Mr. Davidson: This is about removing a federal rule that penalizes provinces for making a public policy decision in their own area of jurisdiction. That's essentially what the issue is about here.
Senator Eggleton: The federal government can't exactly wash its hands of refugees. We do have the responsibility under legislation for immigration and refugees, and we have always taken that responsibility, so washing our hands of it is not something I see as a good idea at all.
However, you're saying this all on the basis of discussions with Ontario officials. The Ontario government hasn't asked for this. You haven't named any other province you have talked with, not anybody else that you've talked with. Have you consulted anybody else?
Mr. Davidson: In my role as Director General responsible for federal-provincial relations, we have had conversations with other provinces. When we were going through this exercise with Ontario and identified the challenges that some generous Ontario benefits and the lack of good information sharing between the Ontario government and the federal government had done in the context of asylum claimants, we certainly brought other provinces up to date on that; but in terms of the detail of this mechanism, no, senator, we have not had a detailed conversation with the provinces.
Senator Eggleton: And no province has asked for this?
Mr. Davidson: That's correct.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: This bill changes the national standard. It gives more flexibility to the provinces; they can choose whether to do it or not. And, at the same time, the bill eliminates the penalties that existed before.
Speaking of penalties, has the federal government ever withheld funding from a province or territory precisely because the province or territory had not complied with the national standard? Have there ever been cases like that?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: This is a provision that has been in successive federal legislation since the late 1950s.
There is one case I'm aware of — it was referenced earlier by a witness — in British Columbia in the mid-1990s when they did impose briefly minimum residency requirements. That was under a previous iteration of what was called the Canada Assistance Plan which was a predecessor program to the current Canada Social Transfer.
Under the Canada Social Transfer, no one has implemented a minimum residency requirement, and no withholding has been imposed against a province for it.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: If it has not been a problem in the past, why change it?
[English]
Mr. Davidson: As I had said earlier, senator, the issue here is about removing an item in the federal law that penalizes the provinces or could penalize the province or territory should they decide to exercise their own constitutional jurisdiction.
Senator Chaput: But it never did before, though.
Mr. Davidson: Correct, not under this specific provision, as my colleague explained.
Senator Enverga: According to what you said, it looks like this bill is here now so we can enhance the relationship between the province and the federal government; is that correct?
Mr. Davidson: It certainly is intended to remove a penalty on the provinces in their own area of constitutional responsibility. By doing so, yes, I think it underlines the important differences between the federal role and the provincial role.
Senator Enverga: Maybe you've heard about this from our conversation with the last witnesses. You mentioned that these changes do not apply to Canadian citizens, permanent residents and protected persons, which includes refugees. Would you say all the refugees or only the illegal refugees?
The Chair: I'm going to ask you to clarify this issue because the summary is not quite accurate. Can you clarify the issue with regard to refugees? That's the part that is confused by the question.
Mr. Davidson: As Ms. Dench explained, the phrase in the bill, which is the phrase found in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is ''protected persons,'' so the limitation on giving the provinces the ability to make that policy choice applies to Canadian citizens and to permanent residents, both have full mobility rights under the Canadian Charter. It also applies to protected persons who are individuals who have been found to be refugees, either by the Immigration and Refugee Board or by visa officers overseas in the context of the resettlement of refugees program. And then the carve-out also applies for that special group of individuals who are particularly vulnerable, and those are individuals who have been trafficked to come to Canada and who are holding a temporary resident permit on that basis.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Davidson, you have written here that it's important to note that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to obtain a visitor visa or a study or work permit, all foreign nationals must demonstrate that they can support themselves and their dependants financially for the duration of their stay.
What kind of documentation or what do they have to produce to certify that they are financially secure?
Mr. Davidson: Senator, that will vary quite dramatically from case to case.
I spent the first half of my career as a visa officer processing these kinds of cases. In some circumstances, that would be an individual who has a job that we know pays well, and for other individuals, particularly if they're coming to study, we'll be looking for deeper information to ensure they can pay for their studies in Canada and to live in Canada. The documentation will vary quite widely from case to case. It certainly is an issue that is alive in decisions about the issuance of those kinds of documents, both overseas and also at the border.
Senator Seth: I've seen some cases being rejected, and then people do ask for the opinion, and they were refused because their financial statement from the country of origin was not enough to support their case.
Mr. Davidson: Yes, senator, there certainly can be situations where the individual feels they have provided sufficient documentation, but it's up to the individual to satisfy the visa officer that they have indeed provided that information. If the officer feels that the information is not sufficient, or does not demonstrate enough support, the officer has the authority under the legislation to refuse the case.
Senator Seth: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Going back to Senator Eggleton's comments, no province asked for this bill, although it would affect the provinces most directly. Who did ask for these changes?
Mr. Davidson: This is government legislation, so it has been developed in the context of normal analysis, looking at gaps in legislation, looking at issues that we feel need to be addressed. In this case, as I said, when we realized that there was this issue where the federal government was potentially penalizing provinces for taking public policy decisions within their own jurisdiction, it was decided by the government that this was sufficiently important that warrants inclusion in this piece of legislation.
Senator Cordy: It didn't come from the provinces that it most directly affects. None of them asked for it. After analysis and seeing the gaps that provinces didn't ask for, the government went ahead and decided that a private member's bill would be the way to analyze it, I guess.
Mr. Davidson: The issue came up, as I said, in conversations we had with the Government of Ontario, and then it was being analyzed within the government. Yes, there were two private member's bills that were presented in the context of the drafting of the bill before you. The government decided that this issue was sufficiently important that it warranted inclusion in a government bill.
Senator Cordy: Or it was a government bill initially masked as a private member's bill. There are lots of conversations that I have with people. It doesn't mean that I want to make a bill about it. I'm not sure why, if provinces haven't asked for it, why it was made.
You said these changes don't apply to refugees, yet all the documentation I had in reading the measures in the bill and our briefing notes says that it is going to affect refugees. The witnesses who appeared prior to you said it would affect refugees. What makes you think it is not going to affect them?
Mr. Davidson: The witnesses previously had talked about asylum claimants. And my presentation today also flagged that individuals who have not yet been found to be refugees and who, therefore, are not refugees, legally speaking, under federal legislation, would potentially be impacted, should a province choose to exercise its constitutional authority.
Senator Cordy: So a refugee claimant will be affected.
Mr. Davidson: Potentially, if the province or territory chose to exercise that jurisdiction.
Senator Cordy: I agree with Senator Eggleton, too, going back. This is a UN definition of a refugee. This is in Canadian law, yet it seems to me we're downloading to the provinces, but maybe that's just me.
You also said a trafficked person who holds a temporary resident permit would not be affected, and that's a good thing except we heard from the previous witnesses that there are challenges receiving a temporary resident permit for trafficked persons, that they're waiting extended periods of time before they receive that.
Mr. Davidson: On your former point, the provision of Canadian law that you referred to is the same position that the carve-out here, the extra protection in this provision, refers to. That's the reference to ''protected persons'' under section 95(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That is the current federal legislative definition of ''protected person,'' which includes refugees.
On the issue of trafficked persons, this bill is not adjusting the mechanism by which those individuals are processed, nor how they are processed.
Senator Cordy: I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is it doesn't apply, but if they can't get the temporary resident permit, they are going to be part of the residency requirement, or could be. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: To be clear about this, given Senator Seth and Senator Enverga's questions, we're really talking about refugee claimants, or asylum claimants as you note them; those are the people at risk.
When the boat people came over from Vietnam, nobody asked them what their bank balance was, I'm sure. They were clearly refugees who were penniless, and there are a lot of people coming into this country on that basis. The problem is between the time they arrive and the time their refugee decision is made. How long is the period of time that we looking at, on average?
Mr. Davidson: Senator Eggleton, the context of the boat people arrivals was a resettled refugee program. Ms. Dench made a comment before about Canadian support for refugees, and I couldn't have agreed with her more.
My department, the government, all former governments of Canada, and Canadian society, more broadly, has always understood the value of immigration and the value of our humanitarian tradition in protecting refugees.
The boat people were what we now call ''protected persons.'' On that Canada has been leading in the world. There are relatively few countries that have major resettlement programs. Canada is certainly one of them. None of this is being impacted by this provision.
In the second part of your comment, senator, you asked about how long it takes for an individual to be processed. In the context of the resettled movement, like the boat people, those individuals are normally processed as permanent residents. They arrive as permanent residents; so they have status as soon as they arrive.
For individuals who come and make a claim in Canada, either at the border, or inland, the reforms that have been put in place over the last few years to the asylum determination system has actually sped up the processing times dramatically. I believe on average decisions at the Immigration and Refugee Board are being made within three or four months, so considerably faster than they were only a few short years ago.
Senator Eggleton: They may be faster. I don't think I would call them ''reforms.''
That three- or four-month period, if a province decides it's going to have a three-month period for residency requirement, what are those people going to do in those three months? Starve?
Mr. Davidson: This would be part of the calculation that provincial governments would need to make in deciding whether or not they choose to take advantage of this removal of the penalty in their own jurisdiction.
If they choose to go this way, as in any form of good public policy, they would look at what mitigation measures may be necessary in cases that are particularly compelling.
Again, this bill is not about forcing provinces to do this. This bill is about removing the penalty on them should they choose to use their own jurisdiction.
Senator Eggleton: Say they want to put a three-month provision in place, or any provision, if that's in place that would then reduce the Canada Social Transfer?
Mr. Davidson: Absolutely not.
Mr. MacDonald: Can you repeat the question?
Senator Eggleton: If a province says they'll put a three-month residency requirement for a refugee claimant in place, how does that affect the calculation of what the federal government transfers to the province? If they're spending less money because they have the three-month residency requirement then presumably you're giving them less money.
Mr. MacDonald: There are two parts to that answer. The first part is that the allocation of the Canada Social Transfer today to provinces and territories is in the areas I mentioned earlier — child care, post-secondary education, social programming and social assistance — but there is no stipulation or requirement in the Canada Social Transfer as to how the monies transferred from the federal government are to be used. That respects provincial prioritization as to which of those priorities they wish to allocate the funding towards; so it's not a transfer in support of a given amount of social assistance funding, if I can put it that way.
The second part is as a result of the amendments to the bill. If a residency requirement is put in place that satisfies this amendment, it does not trigger the requirement for the Minister of Employment and Social Development to interact with the province to determine the violation of the condition and therefore go on as laid out in the Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and make a deduction.
Senator Eggleton: You're working around it here. If they're spending less money, I take it that the social transfer, the actual cost, comes on the basis of what their estimated costs or whatever figures you take, but it comes on the basis of some figures. If they have this minimum requirement, presumably you will give them less money; but on the other hand, if these people end up on the street and in shelters, which costs a lot of money, will they be able to claim that as well?
Mr. MacDonald: With respect to the first part of your question about whether the amount of funding that is transferred through the Canada Social Transfer is contingent on the amounts that are actually spent, the way the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is set, there is a total amount of funding and an automatic escalator for that total amount that is applied. That total amount is allocated on an equal per capita basis across all provinces and territories. That part is unchanged.
Mr. Davidson: Regardless of whether or not a province chose to take this action there would be no impact on the amount of money that flows from the federal government.
Senator Eggleton: What are we doing this for, then? It's crazy. No one has asked for this in the provinces, and you're saying you're not going to reduce the amount of money, although I'm suspicious about that, because I think a government can take this definition and start using it to reduce the amount of money.
Senator Merchant: I'm trying to think, in practical ways, how this will affect the plight of the refugees or people who want to come to our shores.
You say that Canada is a desirable country to try to get to. A few years ago there was panic here because a couple of boats full of people arrived on the West Coast. I'm not sure how most of the refugees arrived here. I don't know if the refugees arrived straight to Saskatchewan; I think they stopped somewhere else on the way.
Can you tell me what happened to those people, how long it took for them to be processed? Were they put out on the street? Were they held somewhere? How long did it take to process just those people? I don't know how many people; I think it was 300 people. What happened to them and how long did it take and how will these new provisions change things for the better?
Mr. Davidson: Senator, I regret I am not an expert on that event so I can't really answer your question in terms of the ultimate outcome of individuals that came under those provisions.
In terms of how this bill might have impacted that, again, if the individuals were in a particular province and the province chose to implement a residency provision for any social assistance that they might have otherwise wanted, the bill would make it clear to the province that the federal government would not penalize that province for that public policy choice that the province made in their own area of competency.
Senator Merchant: So the federal government is washing its hands of any responsibility to try and help people in the world who are so desperate that they decide to come very long distances. As I said previously, women and children, it's their last resort. So the federal government has now washed its hands. The provinces have not asked for this, but they have decided that they're just going to leave it up to the provinces to deal with it.
Mr. Davidson: Senator, if I could respond to that, this bill is very narrow, very limited. It's simply saying to the province, if they choose to use their own authority, that the federal government will not penalize them through a reduction in the Canada Social Transfers.
Senator Merchant: I understand.
Mr. Davidson: There is nothing in this bill that in any way reduces either our obligations or our humanitarian traditions in protecting refugees, those traditions that I think we are all incredibly proud of. There's nothing in this bill that in any way reduces that and should make us concerned about a reduction in our support as a country for individuals in such humanitarian situations.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we understand the situation. We certainly understand the concerns that are raised with regard to what might happen in certain circumstances. That leaves us ultimately with a decision as to how we recommend on this.
I want to thank you both for answering very clearly and articulately the questions in what is obviously a difficult area in terms of some background aspects.
(The committee adjourned.)