REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to table its
SIXTEENTH REPORT
Your committee, which was authorized to examine 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 tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, October 30, 2014, examined the said subject matter and now reports as follows:
Introduction
Your committee heard testimony on Divisions 5, 7, 17, 20 and 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, over the course of three meetings. These divisions relate to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Revolving Funds Act, the DNA Identification Act, the Public Health Agency of Canada Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, respectively.
Observations
Division 5 – The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
While the majority of your committee supports the changes proposed in Division 5, there was strong opposition. As such it wishes to append the following observations.
Division 5 would introduce amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to modify the “national standard” for the Canada Social Transfer so that it applies only to certain groups of people. According to the national standard as currently defined in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, no residency requirement may be imposed by a provincial or territorial government on social assistance recipients without the possibility of incurring a penalty in the form of a reduction in the Canada Social Transfer from the federal government. These amendments would remove the risk of a financial penalty should the provinces and territories require people, mainly refugee claimants awaiting a decision, to meet a minimum residency period before being eligible for social assistance.
Your committee observes that social assistance is a matter of provincial/territorial jurisdiction and that, as a result of these amendments, provincial/territorial governments would have the policy option of imposing a residency requirement available to them without risk of a financial penalty. Your committee respectfully notes that whether a residency requirement will be imposed on any group is a matter for each provincial/territorial government to decide.
Witnesses who appeared before your committee expressed concerns over the anticipated impacts of these amendments should any provincial/territorial government choose to impose a residency requirement for social assistance. They suggested that refugee claimants would experience the greatest impact, especially at a time when they are most vulnerable (upon arrival in Canada, in the midst of preparing their refugee claim under tight timelines, and without social or family supports). Witnesses also suggested that impoverished refugee claimants without access to social assistance would impose a significant burden on non-governmental and charity organizations to assist them.
Division 7 – The Revolving Funds Act
Your committee supports the change proposed in Division 7 and does not have any observations to offer.
Division 17 – The DNA Identification Act
Your committee supports the changes proposed in Division 17; however it wishes to append the following observations.
Division 17 would introduce amendments to the DNA Identification Act to authorize the creation of new DNA indices within the National DNA Data Bank (NDDB). These new indices would strengthen the current law enforcement application of the NDDB as well as allow for a humanitarian role for the NDDB in the location and identification of missing persons and human remains.
Your committee is supportive of the goal of these provisions. That is, to strengthen and expand the role of the NDDB. However, some members of the committee expressed concern for the provisions that allow for the sharing of information contained in the NDDB with foreign entities. In this regard they emphasize the obligation to protect personal privacy and urge strict enforcement of the uses to which information from the NDDB may be put.
Division 20 – The Public Health Agency of Canada Act
While the majority of your committee supports the changes proposed in Division 20, there was strong opposition. It does not have any observations to offer.
Division 24 – Amendments to the Immigration andRefugee Protection Act
Your committee supports the changes proposed in Division 24; however it wishes to append the following observations.
Division 24 would introduce amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to implement changes to federal temporary work permit programs (the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and International Mobility Programs) announced in June 2014.
Among other things, Bill C-43 authorizes the Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration and Employment and Social Development to create a list with the name and address of employers found guilty of certain offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or an offence under any other federal or provincial law that regulates employment or recruitment. Your committee heard from government officials that employers listed would be ineligible to access the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and International Mobility Programs.
Witnesses who appeared before the Committee expressed some concerns in relation to this list, while acknowledging that the regulatory regime for such a list has not yet been established. They pointed to the existing blacklist created by regulation to make public employers found non-compliant with program conditions, explaining that the consequences of being listed can be quite severe for some employers. Witnesses suggested that a fair public list should include only designated provincial offences, a judicial standard for guilt, due process, an appeal for employers, and allow for “good faith errors”.
Your committee is sympathetic to the concerns raised by witnesses and awaits the new regulations authorized by Bill C-43, which will bring clarity to the scope of the list and will provide for how employers’ names are to be removed from it. Further, your committee is interested in seeing how this public list of ineligible employers fits within the government’s overall approach to penalties for wrongdoings by employers of temporary foreign workers, which is currently in the consultation phase.
Your Committee asks that the current regulations be reviewed to permit the waiver of the LMIA fee in cases of financial hardship involving seniors and individuals with disabilities, specifically those who live on fixed incomes.
Respectfully submitted,
KELVIN K. OGILVIE
Chair