Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Henaway, I checked with the clerk, who tells me that this meeting was never going to be held in Côte-des-Neiges, so I think perhaps you have this committee confused with another committee. However, as it stands, just as we are representing the people—I represent the people of Laval—Les Îles, and am an elected member—I consider that you, Mr. Henaway, represent a number of voices, just as everyone sitting around this table does. So although it would have been perhaps fantastic to be in the middle of an immigrant community of Côte-des-Neiges, this isn't what this committee is about. This committee is about hearing a few people who represent thousands and thousands of people. The fact that you're able to present your voice on behalf of hundreds of people of Côte-des-Neiges and elsewhere is to me very satisfying.
Secondly, I would like to speak to Madame Malla on Bill C-50. Needless to say, I'm a Liberal and I absolutely agree with you, and I know that my colleague Mr. Telegdi also does. We both have talked to our Liberal colleagues on Bill C-50. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. Without going into the detail here, because I know I'm not going to have the time for it, and I'm quite willing to do it at another place and another time with you, there are a number of strategies that we have started putting in place right now. The other parties are doing different things, but we're doing certain things to make sure that Canadians across Canada are aware of what Bill C-50 is about.
I can tell you that I held a meeting in Montreal a few days ago, and I know that other parties are having meetings across Canada as well. We are working against Bill C-50. There are different ways of doing it. Those things you mentioned about Bill C-50, such as the discretionary and discriminatory powers of the minister, I'm absolutely against. They give too much leeway to an individual, when we all know that what is important in Canada is not the individual but the rule of law. The individual translates the rule of law, but it is the rule of law that predominates.
The fast-track application also worries me a lot, because it means that somebody could always drop to the bottom of the line and wait forever before his application is received. In fact, we know, because I've talked to the civil servants on this bill, that if Bill C-50 passes, part 6, which has to do with immigration, would mean that Immigration Canada would no longer be obligated to receive the immigration request of a person who asks to immigrate to Canada, which now must be accepted by Immigration Canada in whatever embassy across the world. In other words, if I were to go to, I don't know, the office in New Delhi and say that I want to be an immigrant, right now they're obligated to at least take my request. Under Bill C-50, once that backlog is done, they are not even obligated to take it. They can say, “We're sorry, but there are too many people already. Forget it. We'll see you in a couple of years.” This is really what it means.
So as far as Bill C-50 is concerned, I'm entirely with you, and I would strongly urge you to get other people who are like-minded--people like you and the other people around this table--to speak up against Bill C-50. We're doing it in our own way, which will not be the same as yours, obviously, but there's a meeting of minds.
I would now like to go back to Ms. Osmani, if I have any time left.
Ms. Osmani, you and I have known each other for a long time. Twenty years ago, I worked with the group of domestic workers from the Philippines. The problems you talked to us about are the same as those we tried to solve 20 years ago. I almost feel like I've gone back to that time.
Without going into the details, the problem that troubled us 20 years ago concerned the disposition of the provincial jurisdiction relative to the federal jurisdiction. In the short time remaining to you, Ms. Osmani or Ms. Ouar, can you talk to us about federal jurisdiction? What can we do to help you?