Debates of Feb. 24th, 2005

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The bill would have significant consequences not just for Citizenship and Immigration Canada but for many other departments as well. It is important for all of us to look very closely at its provisions and carefully weigh its potential impact before we move forward.

The notion of allowing someone to enter our country as a visitor on the strength of a bond or guarantee, of course, has been around in one form or another for many years. The subject is not new.

Bill C-283 would add a new wrinkle to this debate however by purporting to implement safeguards against potential abuse through provisions that restrict access to the refugee determination system for this class of visitor. As well, those who visit Canada under the terms of this bill would not be allowed to make an application to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds should their circumstances change.

Canada is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees as well as the UN convention on torture. These conventions commit us to not return individuals to a country where they could face torture or have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Bill C-283 could therefore lead to violations of our international commitments and our humanitarian duty to help those in need of Canada's protection. Moreover, by requiring claimants to leave Canada regardless of whether or not the refugee claim has been heard, Bill C-283 on its face would seem to violate section 7 of the charter, which guarantees to everyone on Canadian soil the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The bill before us is not supportable on these grounds alone; however, there are many more reasons why I cannot support this flawed legislation.

The bill would essentially allow any Canadian or permanent resident over the age of 18 to apply to sponsor a foreign national as a visitor to Canada by posting a bond or guarantee. It applies to cases where an application for a temporary resident visa has failed within the previous year and the sponsor has not posted a bond for a foreign national who subsequently failed to comply with the conditions of his or her visa within the previous five years. The amount of each bond is to be determined in accordance with section 45 of the current regulations.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges noted in the last debate that the bill's provisions are restricted to close family members. I suggest that on closer examination she will find that this is indeed not the case. The bill has no such limit. It applies to all Canadian and permanent residents over the age of 18 regardless of whether there is any connection to the sponsor or not.

It could apply, for example, to an adult surfing the net who sponsors a minor he or she meets online. It could also apply to people smugglers willing to spend the small amount of money required to pursue their illegal activities. The door is wide open.

The government has explored ways of allowing people to sponsor visitors through the use of bonds in the past and has rejected that idea for many of the same reasons that Bill C-283 is not supportable.

Bill C-283 would place an unsustainable administrative burden on an already heavily strained system and would likely produce few benefits. Visa officers are unlikely to be swayed in cases where they have already decided the application for a visitor's visa should be rejected.

Under the terms in Bill C-283, an officer would need time to confirm the identity and status of the sponsor in Canada after an initial application has been rejected. He or she would then need to determine the financial resources of a sponsor in Canada. This could involve credit checks, a review of assets and income, tax returns and many other documents. There would also have to be a review to ensure financial sources are not linked to organized crime.

A second application for a visa would then need to be filed and processed. Even with a bond, there is no guarantee the application would be accepted. Such a system is therefore not only cumbersome and slow, it also has the potential to exacerbate the levels of frustration many of our constituents might be feeling today. It would do little to these cases or even guarantee a satisfactory outcome for the applicant.

I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta during the previous debates on the bill. I was particularly interested in his comparisons with Australia and his comments regarding Canada's high commission in New Delhi.

I fully understand the frustration he might have felt in talking to failed applicants outside the high commission. But the hon. member will also know that many applications for a visitor's visa are approved without an interview. Only those with tenuous applications are asked to appear at the high commission. I therefore find his unofficial survey rather inaccurate.

His comparisons to Australia are similarly so, since he takes no account of the social, cultural, and even geographic differences between our countries. Nor does he take into account the fact that Australia has no charter of rights and freedoms. Perhaps a more realistic comparison is within our own country and our own past experiences with bonds.

This is most troubling for me and my constituents as my colleague opposite has just referenced. Members will recall the 1999 four boatloads of illegal migrants who arrived on British Columbia's coast from the Chinese province of Fujan. Most of the migrants from the first boat were released after guarantors posted bonds to ensure they would report for the hearing process. All subsequently fled and forfeited their bonds. Investigators suspect that most made their way to the U.S. with the help of human smugglers. I therefore think it is safe to say that bonds are not an effective deterrent to flight in today's world of human smuggling and highly organized crime syndicates.

For all these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-283 or any other such deeply flawed system that would expose the government to an unsupportable strain on existing resources involving our international commitments as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all of the members who participated in the two hours of debate on Bill C-283, my private member's bill.

I would also like to thank the Liberal member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, the current chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, for seconding my bill.

I appreciate the support of and contributions made by all members during the debate.

There are serious problems with our visitor visa system and in fact with our immigration system: delays, corruption, inefficiencies, political interference and manipulation.

My office, like those of other members in large urban centres, is flooded with complaints and requests for assistance to help family members and friends visit Canada. I hear stories of mothers and fathers prohibited from attending weddings and sons and daughters stopped from going to funerals.

The federal government is keeping families apart. There is no compassion and no means of appeal. When someone is denied a visitor visa, all we can tell them through their family members here is to reapply and hope for a more favourable response. Even a letter from a member of Parliament is usually meaningless. In some instances, we can approach the minister's office for a permit, but that is a less than satisfactory option. We know how a minister's office abuses the permits for political reasons.

The solution I am offering with Bill C-283 is only a partial answer to the problems of the system. In fact, it is an effort to improve the immigration system and prevent abuse. It would help to open the front doors of the immigration system and close the back doors.

Sponsorship of a visitor backed by an enforceable guarantee or bond is not a prerequisite for applying for a visitor visa. Rather, it is an extra measure and hope after the refusal for those who were unable to satisfactorily establish their bona fides.

The measure I am suggesting is already working very well in Australia and has been since July 2000. At the very least, if people can be reunited with their families for important, once in a lifetime events, sponsorship is well worth implementing.

There were some concerns voiced regarding this bill, some of them by Liberal members. They were misleading due to the lack of research by the last minute speaker or maybe just malintended from a political point of view. Let us deal with these.

The first concern was discrimination against families with low incomes. The current system already discriminates against people with low incomes, but with Bill C-283, however, there would be no discrimination against sponsors with low incomes, because the amount of the deposit or guarantee would be flexible and fixed on the basis of the criteria set out in subsection 45(2) of the Immigration Act. Or it could be a percentage of assets or net worth so that the amount would not be punitive for the sponsors, who may be financially weak.

It is for this reason that I did not include an amount in the bill: so that it could be flexible and not punitive. This would prevent discrimination against low income sponsors and yet be effective in preventing abuse. On the other hand, if the amount of a bond were not satisfactory, poor people would never be released on bail in our judicial system.

The second concern was the added cost for the immigration department. The added burden on the immigration department would not be that large. In fact, sponsorship might result in less demand upon the department and its staff, both in Canada and abroad, because there would be less need for reapplying and for minister's permits.

The visitor visa in the immigration system is a cash cow and the department must reinvest some money in training and resources. Immigration is our bloodline to our economy, enhances diversity and is the first line of security to the country, so well trained resources are a must. We should not overlook the tremendous benefits that come from visitors.

Finally, there was an objection to clause 5 in my bill, about a sponsored visitor not applying for refugee status while in Canada. I am very flexible. I do not want to violate anyone's rights. Therefore, let the immigration committee determine if it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will be very flexible. I will take that measure out of that bill.

In conclusion, I will say that allowing Canadians and landed immigrants to sponsor foreign nationals applying to visit Canada on a temporary resident permit by posting a bond or a guarantee is an idea whose time has come. Members from all parties in the House have spoken in favour of this bill. Many have come up to me in person to voice their support and have said it is a good idea.

Therefore, I hope everyone will now vote in favour of Bill C-283, thus voting in favour of improving our visitor visa system and our immigration system, and send this bill to committee for further consideration. I thank the members who are supporting this bill and I hope other members will vote in favour of sending the bill to committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 9, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if any single lack of action demonstrates the fact that the Prime Minister dithers when he should be taking a firm principled stand, it is the decision by the Prime Minister and his government not to stand up for the principles of the Canada Health Act.

On November 30 last year I asked a straightforward question to the Minister of Health: Would he stand up and protect the integrity of the health care system in Canada?

The fact that the government was not even aware that the Canada Health Act was being breached until I raised the issue demonstrates the leadership vacuum in the government party that has been recognized in Canada and internationally by our allies.

In not moving quickly to defend medicare, the Prime Minister has not just insulted the memory of his own father, but all Canadians who support medicare.

On May 18 last year the Ontario Liberal government introduced a controversial new tax called the Ontario health premium after campaigning on a promise not to raise taxes.

The Canada Health Act specifically excludes members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP from the definition of insured persons. The Ontario Health Insurance Act defines an insured person based on the definition of someone who is entitled to receive insured services. This confirms in federal legislation and in companion provincial legislation the ineligibility of members of Canada's military and the RCMP resident in Ontario to be members of the provincial health care system.

To add injury to insult, the regulations which accompany the Ontario Health Insurance Act make specific mention of members of the Canadian military and the RCMP regarding waiting and eligibility periods for non-insured persons.

The fact that OHIP is collected through the income tax system is no excuse on the part of the federal government to allow this breach to continue. The Ontario Liberal government is flagrantly violating the act in charging its new premium tax to RCMP and military members.

In the case of Canada's military, the Constitution Act, 1867 assigned sole responsibility for all military matters, including military health care, to the federal government. They are ineligible to be members of provincial health care plans.

The Canadian Forces health services is a $450 million health care system that the federal government identifies as a direct federal contribution to total public health care spending in Canada. The federal government uses this figure in health care negotiations to reduce the amount it transfers to the provinces. The RCMP, soldiers and taxpayers are all being asked to pay twice by Ontario. This is wrong and it should be stopped.

Why is it that the federal government allows the Liberal government in Ontario to violate the spirit and the law of the Canada Health Act when other provinces in Canada that charge health premiums exempt the military and RCMP?

Two other provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, currently charge health premiums. Both provinces specifically exempt members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP from paying health care premiums when they reside in those provinces.

Of all individuals who should be aware of this violation of the Canada Health Act, it should be the Minister of Health since he was a former chief minister for the province of British Columbia.

The B.C. Ministry of Health distributes a pamphlet regarding the medical services plan, MSP, in that province. Under the heading “Requirement to Enroll”, it states that residents of B.C. are required, by law, to enroll themselves and their dependants with MSP. It goes on to state, “Benefits for active members of the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces are a federal responsibility; therefore, these members are ineligible for provincial health care benefits and exempt from enrolling”.

In the province of Alberta, written right into provincial legislation, in section 3 of the Health Insurance Premiums Act, members of Canada's military and the RCMP are exempted from paying premiums for health care.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to respond to the question raised in November by the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke concerning the Canada Health Act specifically excluding members of the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces from paying health care premiums.

It is the role of the Minister of Health to ensure that provincial and territorial health insurance plans operate in accordance with the Canada Health Act. The aim of the act is to ensure that all eligible residents of Canada have reasonable access to medically necessary insured services on a prepaid basis, without direct charges at the point of service for such services.

Provinces and territories have considerable leeway in determining how their share of the costs of their individual health insurance plans will be financed, provided they meet the criteria and conditions of the Canada Health Act.

The provinces and territories can fund health care through payroll taxes, sales tax, premiums, other provincial or territorial revenues, or a combination of these methods.

Premiums and health insurance taxes are permitted, provided that a resident is not refused coverage of medically necessary hospital or doctor's services because he is unable to pay that premium.

Alberta and British Columbia both have health premiums, and require direct payment of premiums by residents or their employer. These provinces have established premium payment assistance plans based on income. In these provinces, a person who does not have the means to pay the premium can apply for assistance from the provincial health insurance plan.

The Canada Health Act definition of insured persons includes members of the Canadian Forces, persons appointed to a position of rank within the RCMP, persons having a term of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary and persons who have not completed a minimum period of residence in a province or territory.

However, as residents of provinces, members of these groups are responsible for paying the appropriate provincial taxes. It is not necessary for provincial or territorial health insurance plans to provide coverage to individuals who are excluded under the Canada Health Act since they have health insurance coverage under other legislated programs.

In Alberta and British Columbia, these individuals do not register for health insurance coverage and do not pay for health premiums administered by the provincial ministries of health.

In Ontario, what is referenced to as a premium is really a provincial income tax and the premium varies between zero and $900 in proportion to an individual's taxable income. This differs from the previous premium program that operated in the province between 1950-89 where Ontarians paid fixed health premiums.

Then, as is currently the case in Alberta and British Columbia, the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces did not register with the provincial plan and were excluded from having to pay premiums.

As my colleagues know, the new Ontario health contribution came into effect on July 1, 2004. This contribution is a personal income tax created under the Ontario Budget Measures Act, 2004 and regulated by the Ontario Income Tax Act. Ontario is working together with the Canada Revenue Agency to collect and administer the contribution under the tax collection agreement between Ontario and the Government of Canada.

The Ontario health premium applies to individuals who are residents of Ontario on the last day of the taxation year. Non-resident taxpayers are exempt from the premium. People who work in Ontario but live elsewhere, for example in Quebec, will have premiums collected but are eligible for a refund.

Individuals with taxable incomes under $20,000 will not pay any health premium. The Ontario health premium is not linked to the eligibility of health care in the province, only to residency.

While RCMP officers and members of the Canadian armed forces are not covered by the Ontario health plan, if they are residents of the province they are required to pay the applicable Ontario taxes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the Minister of National Defence on November 3, 2004, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the minister stated that he would personally raise the issue with the provincial treasurer of Ontario because at that time he recognized that Ontario was being totally unfair.

Military members were being forced to pay for services they were prohibited by law from using. I gave the Minister of National Defence an opportunity to answer in the House of Commons what he was doing to correct the situation. The minister was too ashamed to answer, pushing his seatmate, the President of the Treasury Board, to give a non-answer.

The minister stated that he would be happy to take up the issue with the province. I look forward to hearing what actual concrete steps the Minister of Health has taken to defend the integrity of the Canada Health Act against this attack by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it would be quite correct to say that they are prohibited by law from accessing these programs. I think under constitutional arrangements responsibility for health care for the individuals in the classes that we mentioned earlier lies with the federal government and is delivered directly by the federal government or through arrangements with the provinces in most instances.

As far as respecting the letter of intent of the Canada Health Act, it is always the responsibility of the federal government and one which the Minister of Health takes very seriously. The question of income tax in the provinces is completely on the provincial side. We administer them collaboratively through the Canada Revenue Agency to save taxpayers' expenses at both ends and make sure that they are collected fairly, and we will continue to do that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was originally going to pose a query here in adjournment proceedings resulting from the Treasury Board President's insult against Canada's youth when he said that I was too young to serve in the House of Commons even though 30,488 constituents in my riding decided to replace the existing defence minister with me. However I have decided to take this discussion one step further and deal with an issue that is important to many young families that I represent in the constituency of Nepean—Carleton.

In particular, in places like Nepean, Greely and Riverside South we have thousands of young families with toddlers running around. The government will be interested to know that Nepean has 23 hockey teams in the same age group, which is why it is so important for me to represent the interests of young families.

Further to that point, the government has announced $5 billion for a national babysitting bureaucracy over the next five years. I find it difficult to understand why those dollars should be taken out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers, hardworking women and families, so that the government can send those dollars to a bureaucracy and ultimately to a group of unionized staff to set up a brand new babysitting bureaucracy, a brand new day care administration run by the government.

In representing the views of my constituents, I would rather see those dollars go directly into the pockets of parents to deal with child care needs directly. We could cut the bureaucracy out of the process by just giving those child care dollars directly to the people who care and know most about the interests of their children, those of course being the parents. We have millions of child care experts all across the country who already exist. They are called moms and dads.

I wonder why the government refuses to trust parents. Why does it continue to take billions of tax dollars out of the pockets of middle class working families and force on them a national babysitting bureaucracy which those parents did not choose and do not want? Why will the government not put the child care dollars directly into the pockets of parents? Some might choose to use those dollars for day care. Others might decide to keep one parent in the home. Still others might hire a neighbour, a family member or a community based option to deal with their child care needs while they are at work. However that should be a choice for parents. It is not the right of the government to take that choice away.

Why would the government want to take away a fundamental right of parents to decide what is best for their children by forcing on them a day care system that is not universal, excludes stay at home mothers and fathers, excludes community based care, excludes faith based care, excludes family based care and excludes 90% of options? It only provides funding for a small minority who will end up choosing a government run facility to institutionalize their children. Why would the government want to take away choices from women and families?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member of Parliament on his election. He replaces a fine member of Parliament. Contrary to what he might have said in the House, I congratulate him for having been elected at such a young age. He has a long and distinguished career ahead of him, preferably not in federal politics but in some area of public life.

I had it a little more difficult than him. I was not fortunate at his age to be elected as a member of Parliament. I did not have the benefit of such a good paying job to pay my student loans. I hope things go better for the member.

As for the question of day care in this province, I think we are taking a very huge step in assisting with day care and assisting young families.

The member makes a point that families should choose and that parents should choose. However, he also misleads when he says that this would create a federal bureaucracy. That is not the intent.

We have great confidence in the ability of the provinces, the ability of the communities, and the systems that are in place. We do not believe we need a cookie cutter approach. We believe that the same system could be applicable everywhere in the country. This is why we want to work with the local jurisdictions and see how well it goes.

If we placed an equivalent amount of money, $5 billion, and said we are going to invest that in day care, but rather than doing it by transfers to the provinces and letting them do the arrangements with the communities for day care we did it through the tax system, it would be good for the new member opposite. I do not know if he has any children or if he has started a family. He is in a good income bracket. He would receive a great benefit from that.

A young family in my riding with two children, where both parents are forced to work because of their income levels, the tax system does not work for them. They too have concerns about their children and how they are cared for. There has to be some additional assistance.

The federal government decided, working with the provinces and having campaigned on it and having heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that it was a necessity, to make an initial investment of $5 billion and to do it in partnership. We have already done a lot on the tax side. We have heard that the tax-free personal incomes will be going up in 2009 to $10,000.

That is the threshold before which you pay no income tax. We have also reduced the credits for families, which will mean that a family of four with a family income of $60,000 will have an income tax reduction in Canada of approximately 35%.

These are very important measures which allow these families to make decisions about the way they want to invest. Do they want to invest in early childhood education, in caring for young children so that one of the two parents can remain at work? Those possibilities exist. However, what we want is another system. One that will be a quality system. We know young people who graduate with a very good education to work in day care centres or nursery schools. They are university graduates and they earn pitiful salaries because the communities do not have the resources to pay them.

Now, with these transfers, we will work with the provinces, which in turn can work with the communities. Then we will have a quality system. A system in which we will have made a healthy investment for early childhood, since it will provide us with great Canadian citizens who will continue the development of the country. Then, one day, they will come to replace us in this House, and like generations before us, we will think that all of them are too young.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his answer. He deserves our congratulations because he really does work very hard for his constituents. And that is why I congratulate him now.

The hon. member misses the point. It is true that his government raised ever so slightly the basic personal exemption, which means that the average taxpayer will save a whopping $16 this year. This means that Canadians can buy a doughnut once a month. If they want to have a doughnut once a week, they can carve it into four pieces. They can have a quarter of a doughnut once a week with the money that has been saved for them by this tax relief. What an insult to the working families in his constituency.

Furthermore, he is right about one thing, working families do not have the choices. They do not have the options. This system will take even more options away.

What I propose is a refundable tax credit that would go into the pockets of every family, regardless of their income and would be refundable. Would that not be the way to give real choice to working families in his own riding?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at any tax break, if we look at the $100 million we have done over five years, and if we look at how it applies to each individual citizen over a month or a year, of course, it is not a big amount, but it is $100 million over five years. If we look at a family of four with a $60,000 income, it is 35% of what they were paying in federal income taxes that is reduced.

If we look at the refundable tax credit system, it sounds right immediately because everybody gets a cheque, but that is a regressive method of doing child care. It is a regressive method of assisting Canadians in getting quality day care and quality early childhood education. It is disproportionately weighed toward the side of people who can afford the better systems.

It is not using the money to develop good systems for the people who have less family income, which typically are young families. When they are starting out, their disposable incomes are less. So it is important that we help them, that we help them through the communities, and that we do that in partnership with the provinces. I congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Development.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)