Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Health Care

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

He's full of shit.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

He called ahead. A bed was reserved for him. Specialists were called in from home to treat him. In short, he was given preferential treatment.

If a professional athlete needs health care, he is able to jump the health care queue—

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You're a liar.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I direct myself directly to the member for Scarborough Centre. Did you use the word liar? I would like you to withdraw it.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I am sorry. I take it back.

[The Speaker]

We are going to hear the question from the member for York South—Weston.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in short, the mayor of Toronto was given preferential treatment according to the hospital. If a professional athlete falls ill he or she is given preferential treatment.

What does the government intend to do to ensure that there is not one health care system for the rich and famous in Canada and another health care system, an inferior system, for ordinary Canadians?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the principles of the Canada Health Act are clear. The government has stated very clearly our support for Canadian style medicare and our opposition to an American style system as the Reform Party would have.

Further, in the budget that will be announced within the hour the member opposite will see our commitment to health care in Canada.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker, Mr. Toomas Savi, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Estonia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know you keep a close tie on the House with regard to parliamentary language and you have already asked the member for Scarborough Centre to withdraw his words calling the mayor of Toronto a liar.

But I think all members in the House heard him say the mayor of Toronto was full of shit. It is appropriate that the member for Scarborough Centre withdraw those words as well.

[The Speaker]

To say the least, this was a rather loud question period and I know we are anticipating the budget. We have the House leader for the Reform Party saying that a member used words which are unparliamentary. He has asked me to ask the hon. member for Scarborough Centre about this. Did the hon. member use the terms that the hon. House leader referred to in his submission?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you asked me on a point of order to withdraw the words, and I did.

Let me clarify. It was not in reference to the hon. member for York South—Weston. It was more so to the articles in the newspaper following—

[The Speaker]

That matter is behind us. I address myself to the hon. member. Did the hon. member in the course of question period use the words that the House leader of the Reform Party said he used? And if he did, will he please withdraw them.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, as I did earlier.

[The Speaker]

We have settled this matter.

Sometimes in question period the microphones are open close by and that all comes through the system. I ask you, my colleagues, during question period while a member is putting a question or another member is answering or attempting to answer a question, please pay attention. I would hope that tomorrow we will keep these things in mind so that we can carry out our responsibilities as members of parliament.

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre wishes to seek the floor. If the hon. member is going to refer to the two issues which I have just accepted his withdrawl on, I would ask him to cease and desist. If it is another point I will hear it.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my reference was not to the hon. member for York South—Weston—

[The Speaker]

Order. I consider this matter closed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, and act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to committee.

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard lots of rhetoric today about how good Bill C-63 will be. I am a Canadian by choice. I was 23 when I decided I wanted to come to Canada, be a Canadian and enjoy what this country had to offer and hoping in some small way I could make a contribution back to this great country.

I am concerned about Canadian citizenship and the things we hold dear about our country. They have started to get watered down.

I think of some bills that have been before this parliament recently. In the last parliament, for example, Bill C-49 dealt with the amendments to quite a large number of boards and committees, largely government appointed. We sometimes refer to them as patronage appointees. I picked one dealing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is the guardian of our culture in many ways, subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer to $700 million or $800 million a year.

One would think that this protector of Canadian culture would be a truly Canadian institution. However, section 38(1) of Bill C-49 states:

A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a director if the person is not a Canadian citizen—or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act.

Permanent resident were the words that were added.

I talked about this bastion of Canadian culture. Now we find that one does not have to be a Canadian citizen to sit on the board of CBC. In this parliament, because that bill died on the order paper, Bill C-44, section 38(1) dealing with the CBC now reads that directors of the corporation are deemed to be employees for the purposes of the pension plan and makes no reference whatsoever to Canadian citizenship, lack thereof or qualifications thereof. I presume we could now have foreigners sitting on the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation trying to determine what is Canadian culture and how to develop Canadian culture. It is this type of attitude from the government that tends to debase the concept of Canadian citizenship.

I also want to take up the point that the auditor general raised last year and which the public accounts committee dealt with, the problem of immigration and refugees coming into this country. In response to the auditor general's report at the committee meeting on February 5, 1998 Ms. Janice Cochrane, deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, made the following statement to the public accounts committee:

The auditor general's report identified some important areas where the refugee determination system is not performing up to our expectations. The report questioned the efficiency of the current system. It raised concerns about the level of communication between CIC and the refugee board. It also expressed some doubts about our ability to remove individuals who do not belong in this country.

I do welcome these observations. They are consistent with some of the conclusions that we ourselves have reached at CIC.

Those were the words of the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration when the auditor general pointed out that their policies and procedures were much less than perfect. Hopefully they are now doing something about it but at that time they were not.

I also quote from the auditor general's opening statement to the committee meeting on February 5, 1998 dealing with the removal of illegal refugees and immigrants:

The issue of removals also warrants particular attention. At the end of our audit, the department was able to confirm the departure of only 4,300 of the 19,900 persons who were to have left the country. In short, the process does not grant protection quickly to those who genuinely need it. Furthermore, it does not discourage those who do not require or deserve Canada's protection from claiming refugee status.

Furthermore, we noted that no one in the federal government monitors the overall progress of the claims.

We have heard today how we are dealing with citizenship and not immigration and refugees. However, the point I want to make, again referring back to the auditor general's report of December 1997, paragraph 25.41, is he talks about the huge backlog of 26,000 refugee claims. He points out in paragraph 25.44 that 60% of the people who arrive on our shores claiming refugee status have no documentation of any kind.

I am sure every member in the House knows that when travelling to Canada people do not get on the plane without having a passport or travel documents. Yet 60% of refugees who come off the plane have no travel documents. There was an admission before the committee that sometimes illegal refugees who have been sponsored by couriers and illegal organizations have a passport to get on the plane. A courier is on the plane, picks up the passport and is long gone through customs. They are left with nothing. Now they are here illegally with no documentation. Canadians are being taken for a ride.

Then the whole refugee process kicks into place. It is overburdened. It is not monitored or administered properly. There are backlogs. It takes two and a half years or more to determine that these people are illegal refugees. They are given a deportation order. Then they say that if they are sent back to where they came from, they might get hurt or they might be thrown in prison. An appeal process kicks in and the whole system starts again to determine whether there is a risk in sending them back.

During that time the person gets married, or they have a child. Then they claim they want to stay here under humanitarian grounds. Remember Bill C-63 says that children born in this country are automatically Canadian citizens. Imagine Canada deporting the parents of a Canadian who may be a few months old or one, two or three years old. Absolutely not. They are automatically granted permanent Canadian status on the basis on humanitarian grounds because we took far too long to process the claim.

Clause 10 of Bill C-63 says “The minister may, for the purposes of this act, deem a person who is in Canada and who has resided here for at least 10 years to be or to have become a permanent resident” of the country.

If people want to get into this country by the back door and at the same time have a legal process, they come in and apply for refugee status even though they do not qualify. They work the system and drag it out. They go for the appeal. Then they go for the risk assessment. Then they go for the humanitarian appeal because by this time they have started a family. They wait a few more years and Canadian citizenship is there for the asking. They have totally end-run the entire system.

By virtue of Bill C-63 we are now granting these people automatic entry into Canada. When that gets out we can see a flood of people coming into this country, none of whom would qualify under the rules. Yet Bill C-63 grants them Canadian citizenship after 10 years.

This government by its inability to manage the process properly is subverting and debasing the value of Canadian citizenship. I would hope it would take that seriously, stop it and stop it now.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes the assertion that the parents of somebody who was born in this country are allowed to stay in Canada because their child has been given status as a Canadian citizen. That is not the case. The member should know that.

People who are set for deportation will be deported. The fact that their child has Canadian citizenship status does not stop deportation. The child at that point has the choice of going with his or her parents. So far they have gone with the parents.

Citizenship is granted to people born in this country. That is not something new. It has always been the case. I would hope that the hon. member would recognize that.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather laughable that a two-year old child or a child who is just a baby would have choices that it could intelligently make. Let me quote the auditor general. December 1997, chapter 25, paragraph 129:

Despite the lack of departmental statistics on the number of such claimants, from our analysis we were able to determine that of the 31,200 individuals who applied for refugee status between 1993 and 1997 and had their claims denied, approximately 2,300 were granted permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Most of these individuals were given favourable decisions because they were married to permanent residents or Canadian citizens.

Right there, the auditor general confirmed it to us.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the burden that is placed upon the system when we end up with refugee claimants who have actually departed from a location with identification and have arrived without it.

We have a strong recommendation that we use digital technology. We all know that with the new digital technology we can take pictures at one end, plug them into a computer and pull them off anywhere in the world. I have done that with things as simple as getting pictures in Ottawa of my son playing hockey in Victoria. I know it works even though I am fairly illiterate technically.

That simple bit of technology added to the immigration and refugee system at all major points of departure for Canada seems to me would reduce the huge burden on the immigration and refugee system. Would my colleague like to comment on what he knows about that and what the cost might be?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the cost would be on that type of system, but let me just tell the hon. member what is going on.

The supreme court has said that as soon as somebody sets foot in this country the charter of rights and freedoms kicks in. Let us not argue with that. That is the case. Therefore, we know that when the illegal refugees, and I am talking about the illegal ones not the ones who have a genuine right to be here, arrive in this country, sometimes on the odd occasion the people from immigration will go right on the plane and inspect the passports before people get off. Apparently that is before the charter kicks in because they have not touched Canadian soil at that point in time.

Yet when questioned they said even though that proved and identified illegal refugees who could be sent right back on the next plane, they did not follow that policy. They were far more willing to allow the people to enter into Canadian customs and allow the charter of rights and freedoms to kick in. This would then give them several years of appeals and lawyers and ongoing opportunities to run up huge costs for the Canadian taxpayer.

During that time if they develop a family in this country, on humanitarian grounds they then qualify for permanent residence. Then according to clause 10 of Bill C-63, after 10 years they are home free, a Canadian citizen with a Canadian passport. They have not qualified under a point system, under a refugee system or any system for that matter and they are in all the way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we move on in debate, I should inform the House that we are past the five hours of debate with questions and comments. We are now into 10 minutes, no questions or comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.