Debates of June 3rd, 2015

Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Unfortunately, we are out of time. The 10 minutes have expired.

Resuming debate.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North rising. I will let him know that there are approximately eight minutes, not quite the full 10 minutes, remaining in the time provided for the private member's business hour. I will give the member the usual indication as he is coming to the end of the period that is allowed.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I trust that maybe at a future time I will be able to get the extra two minutes if in fact it is deemed necessary

It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-625. It is an interesting bill, to say the very least. Just listening to some of the debate, I can appreciate why members would be expressing a great deal of concern in regard to census material. My colleague from York raised other issues, but was able to bring it around so that we could understand the relevance of the way in which the government has changed in its behaviour in regard to the whole issue that Bill C-625 is trying to deal with.

Numerous thoughts come to my mind that I think are worth sharing with members. When I think of what the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is attempting to do here, I have a great deal of admiration in terms of why the member has seen this as something that is important. I suspect that if we were to canvass constituents, many would find it somewhat odd, maybe a little peculiar, as to why it is that someone could ultimately end up in jail if in fact he or she did not fill out mandatory forms.

I understand, through listening to some of the debate, that the member for Kingston and the Islands introduced a bill of a somewhat similar nature. However, I suspect that at the time the government's opinion on the issue had been different than what it appears to be today. That is why we would encourage members of the Conservative Party to better explain the rationale or their positioning on Bill C-625, given the response that we had to an earlier piece of legislation that would have done the same thing.

It almost goes without saying that the current law as it states, as someone has pointed out, has really, with the exception of one occasion, never been acted on. I can understand why it has not been acted on. However, at the same time, it is worthy to note that someone did ultimately have to go behind bars, but I understand, based on what I have heard this evening, that incident was based on protest more than anything else. That does not necessarily mean that the bill does not merit being passed.

As I indicated, on the surface I look at the bill and it is worth supporting, given that it is a private member's bill. The Liberal Party caucus has been fairly transparent and open in encouraging members of the Liberal caucus, in fact all members, in dealing with private members' bills of this nature and we encourage having free votes on it. I also see that as a very strong positive.

I want to pick up on the issue of the long form census and that is where I would like to spend some time. I do not really believe the Government of Canada understands the importance of what StatsCan did and the impact of the government's decision to get rid of that mandatory component and downsizing Statistics Canada in its ability to provide the type of results that it was known for.

It is second to no other institution in the world. In fact, there were many other countries that looked at Canada and the way in which we conducted StatsCan through the long form census, and found that it was done in a world-class fashion.

That information is of critical importance. My colleague made reference to schools. The impact that the census had on school divisions is an example of where a school board might be planning to have a school. In certain situations, it has an impact on where it might decide to look at either closing or using a school for an alternative purpose.

There are some really big numbers to be thrown around. We are talking about billions of dollars that are provided to provinces in the form of social transfer payments, whether it is social services, health care, equalization, all of which rely heavily upon the census material that is provided to them. Ensuring that as many Canadians participate in the census process is of critical importance. We are not talking about thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are talking about the transferring of literally billions of dollars from Ottawa to the different provinces, recognizing the many different inequities that are scattered throughout virtually every region of our country.

If I were to focus on the province of Manitoba alone, I can recall a very heated debated inside the Manitoba legislature. There was a question as to whether we were getting the appropriate amount of money through equalization and transfer payments based upon some of the demographics in the province of Manitoba. There was a dispute between Ottawa and Manitoba in trying to come to a better understanding of what the actual numbers were.

When we look at equalization payments, many different things are taken into consideration. It is not only the population of each individual province. We need to have an understanding of the needs of each of the different provinces when we talk about federal policy changes. We saw the impact on changes in health care policy. Provinces that have an older population will be penalized more than provinces that might have a healthier population. I can give a good example. Some communities are better known as retirement communities and have a much higher senior population. Where there is a senior population, there are many more demands upon social services, in particular, health care services.

It is the nuances that are so critically important when we make government decisions. We need to have the best information possible. One of the things we have become very dependent on is the fine work that Statistics Canada has done for generations, and we have all benefited from that.

When we talk about the importance of individual Canadians contributing to that data bank of information that is so vital in the determination and development of good, strong, healthy social policy, it is absolutely critical that this be taken into consideration

I suspect I will have another two minutes when the House gets the opportunity to debate the issue again.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have two minutes remaining for his comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Citizenship and Immigration

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the government's decision—and it was a decision—to deny access to an otherwise acceptable potential immigrant on the grounds of deafness, a decision that in turn points to a serious flaw in Canada's immigration system.

First, the reason given was that the applicant's daughter was medically inadmissible. The government has taken the position that any disability—deafness, in this particular case—can be grounds to deny a person access. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in his response to my question, stated that they are waiting for:

...Mrs. Talosig to explain how she will mitigate the extra costs to the provincial health care system because of a medically inadmissible dependant.

Her daughter does not have a communicable disease or an untreated need for serious surgery. Those conditions might indeed be a reason to deny someone access to Canada, as the suspicion might be that the immigrant was merely trying to access our wonderful health care system. However, a disability, particularly deafness, cannot alone create a medical drain. In fact, many in the deaf community do not consider themselves disabled; rather, they communicate in a different language, such as QSL or ASL.

What of other disabilities for which access to our medical system is not the issue? Persons who can function quite well in a wheelchair, such as the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia or the member Montcalm, function quite remarkably and arguably are huge assets to their community. Are they somehow less valuable because they are in a wheelchair? Would a person in their situation be automatically denied access to Canada, despite their ability to function and be an asset to their community?

The decision by the government is part of a larger, disturbing pattern of behaviour toward the disabled. Although the government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, it has not implemented its requirements. Despite promising in the 2007 throne speech to pass a bill guaranteeing that accessibility barriers would be removed, the government has never presented such a bill.

As an example of the government's failure here on the Hill, it installed security bollards at each sidewalk entrance to the precinct. Those bollards are 31.5 inches apart. Wheelchair users will have difficulty with that opening. The recommended gap width is 36 inches. In Ontario the absolute minimum is 32.5 inches, yet here on the Hill, it is okay to have 31.5 inches. As a result, wheelchair users cannot get in.

On the deafness front, the government has fought a case in court for nine years that shows its failure to remove barriers. A young woman has taken the government to court because its student loan system means that her education cost her twice what it would cost a person with hearing. It seems only fair that the system should be changed, as it discriminates against deaf people, but the government has fought her every step of the way.

I expect that the government will say that it is awaiting Mrs. Talosig's response to its initial decision in order to further proclaim on her case, yet recently she received a letter from the government saying that it is now under review. I am not sure which we are supposed to believe: the letter from the government, or the government's statements here that it is waiting for her response.

The person is deaf. She has no communicable disease and no medical issues per se. She functions quite well. If it goes beyond the medical system and into the education system, the family has already obtained from the school board word that it will accommodate her disability at no cost. As far as I know, she communicated this to the government long ago.

It rests on the government to allow her and her daughter to stay in Canada.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I find it is quite shameful for the member to bring up an immigration case. We should not be playing politics with immigration cases. I think the member knows that. It is exceptionally much worse to be asking about a case in which a final decision has yet to be made.

The member ought to know that these decisions are made by highly trained individuals. They are not made by politicians. Decisions in cases like this are not easy to make, but Citizenship and Immigration Canada must apply the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as it is written. That is the law. Under the law, permanent resident applicants and their dependants must be medically assessed to determine if they will cause an excessive demand to the health care systems of the provinces.

Canada's immigration law does not discriminate against those with illness or disability. It does strive, however, to find the appropriate balance between those wanting to immigrate to Canada and the limited medical resources that are paid for by Canadian taxpayers. The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health, safety and security of Canadian society, including the country's publicly funded health and social services systems.

To assess excessive demand on health or social services, a Citizenship and Immigration Canada medical officer or delegated staff determines the anticipated costs of publicly funded health or social services that would reasonably be incurred due to an applicant's particular health condition.

The costs to provincial health and social services and the impact on waiting lists in Canada are considered and applicants whose prognosis indicates that they would pose an excessive demand on health or social services paid by Canadian taxpayers may be denied entrance to Canada. These are not always easy decisions and they are taken very seriously by immigration officers, balancing the interests of the individual with the broader public interest.

It is also important to note that applicants may be considered inadmissible to Canada if they have a family member who is found to be inadmissible. Again, these decisions are not taken lightly.

As I already indicated in the House, and as I said earlier, Citizenship and Immigration Canada issued a letter to Mrs. Talosig in which we invited her to respond to concerns that were raised about her specific application. She now has 60 days to respond and address the concerns raised by visa officials.

As the hon. member is aware, we cannot comment on the further details of the case because of the Privacy Act. I would ask that he respect that and let the case take its natural course.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the points I was trying to make is that the immigration system is apparently not working. It is not the individual in this case, and I respect the privacy of the individual, but the case has discovered a flaw in the system. The flaw in the system is not in the law, but in a regulation. The regulation is passed by the government and by order-in-council, not by the House. In the regulation it states, ““Excessive demand” means”:

—a demand on health services or social services for which the anticipated costs would likely exceed average Canadian per capita health services and social services costs over a period of five consecutive years...

That is a terribly unreasonable position. In other words, not excessive cost but any cost that is greater than the average of every Canadian means that individuals are potentially inadmissible to our country, even if it is a dollar. I know the member will say that it is up to the immigration officer, but the rule says any cost that is above the average is something for which a person could be deemed inadmissible. In this case, this points out this horrible flaw in our immigration system.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, decisions in cases like this one are not easy to make, but Citizenship and Immigration Canada must apply the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as it is written.

Under the law, permanent resident applicants and their dependants must be medically assessed to determine if they would pose an excessive demand to the provincial health care systems. Canada's immigration law does not discriminate against those with illness or disability. It does strive, however, to find the appropriate balance between those wanting to immigrate to Canada and the limited medical resources that are paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

As I already indicated, Citizenship and Immigration Canada issued a letter to Mrs. Talosig in which we invited her to respond to concerns that were raised about her specific application. She now has 60 days to respond and address the concerns raised by visa officials.

Having said that, the hon. member is aware that we cannot comment on further details of this case because of the Privacy Act.

Public Safety

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to call on the government to act now to address gang violence in my community.

Last week there was yet another shooting in Surrey. There have been 28 shootings since the beginning of March. Every week brings more shootings and more fear to my city. Parents are concerned about their children. It is simply unacceptable that there are communities in our country where parents are afraid for the safety of their children. The crime problem has reached crisis levels in my city. My community needs immediate help, but the government is stalling and playing politics with this very serious issue.

I have stood up in the House multiple times, and I am scheduled again for a late show next week. I recently demanded that the government take action on this issue. It seems like the Conservatives have to be pushed every step of the way to take any action at all. The mayor and the province have both asked the federal government for 100 more RCMP officers to help fight the escalating violence in Surrey.

The Conservatives had a big announcement with a press conference in Surrey where they finally, after much pressure from the New Democrats, approved the 100 RCMP officers. However, we have yet to see any sort of concrete plan. We have yet to see any action at all. With no description of where the money will come from, no timelines and no tangible steps for implementation, the announcement seems like yet another empty campaign promise. My community needs real answers and I am not getting them from the government.

More officers alone is not enough to fix the crime issue in Surrey, but it is certainly a start. It is going to take all levels of government to work together and make public safety a priority to stop gang-related violence in Surrey. That is why I have introduced a plan in Parliament that calls for long-term, stable funding for youth gang prevention and intervention programs. Youth gang prevention programs across Canada have demonstrated a direct impact on the lives of at-risk youth and reducing gang membership.

The Conservatives talk about being tough on crime. We see on the ground that the resources are not available for our communities to reduce or prevent crime in the first place.

The member across is going to get up and say, “We have introduced 30 new bills and that party didn't support them”. Despite the introduction of those 30 bills and despite us voting against them, because we knew they would not work, the violence is still happening in my community.

My questions are very simple. When, what exact date, will we have the 100 new promised RCMP officers on the ground? When, what exact date, will we receive $3.5 million for Surrey's wraparound gang prevention program? These are very simple questions. These are the questions that people from my constituency, the people from the city of Surrey and parents are asking.

I do not want to hear rhetoric. I have been hearing it for too long. I want some answers for my constituents and for the city of Surrey and I would like straight answers. When are the police going to be there? When is the money going to be delivered and for how many years?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking strong action to keep our streets and communities safe through significant commitment to law enforcement and crime prevention.

One of our key priorities is keeping our streets and communities safe. We have stated that repeatedly in the House and we have acted on that. As our Prime Minister said in the Speech from the Throne, families are the cornerstone of our society. Families raise our children and build our communities. As our families succeed, Canada succeeds.

We take the shootings and escalation of gang violence in Surrey, British Columbia, seriously and we are working closely with partners in Surrey, in British Columbia, and across the country to enhance public safety and shape a safer Canada for all.

As the member should know by now, we were pleased to approve the request for an additional 100 RCMP officers for the community of Surrey to combat crime. We also announced on May 19, 2015, the investment of $3.5 million over the coming five years for the Surrey gang reduction program.

This program will reach up to 400 youth at risk, giving them tools they need to avoid criminal lifestyles and make positive contributions to their community. These young people will benefit from mentorship, academic support, and opportunities to build employment and family support skills.

The Surrey gang reduction program will build on the success of $2.8 million in previous investments made in Surrey, British Columbia, under Public Safety Canada's national crime prevention strategy.

As part of our government's role in preventing crime and making our streets and communities safer places to live, work, and raise our families, we are investing $40.9 million in the national crime prevention strategy per year. By investing in community-based projects such as these, we are fostering opportunities for Canadians to work, live, and prosper in safe and vibrant communities.

To us, the long-term benefits are clear: when youth are engaged in healthy activities and making smart choices, they can make a positive contribution to their lives and to their communities.

We have also passed tough new laws to clean up our streets and put gang members behind bars where they belong. We have passed over 30 new tough-on-crime measures, including new prison sentences for drive-by shootings.

Shockingly and shamefully—I noticed that the member opposite wanted to make this point earlier—that member and the NDP, as well as the Liberals, voted against all of these common sense measures in the House.

In conclusion, Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. That is why our government is supporting community-level programs that have concrete and positive impacts on youth and families at risk and is cracking down on thugs and criminals. Canadians know that only our government can be trusted to keep them safe.

I would hope and I pray that the member and his caucus colleagues will think twice next time before they vote against critical, important legislation that brings safe measures to our communities.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I still did not get my answers.

The member talked about how we shamelessly voted against those 30 measures. Those measures are not working. The shootings are happening despite the 30-odd bills that the Conservatives brought in. That is why we voted against them.

What is really shameful are the the government's hollow promises to communities that it will provide safety for our communities. It has not done that. That is why parents in my community are afraid to let their children out.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has failed to answer my very simple question, so I will ask him again. Let us see if he answers.

It is on the record. I will come back again next week and ask the same question until the Conservatives provide very clear answers as to when we can expect those 100 RCMP officers and when and how that $3.5 million will be provided to help the gang prevention program.

These are very simple questions. I have not been hearing any answers from the parliamentary secretary. Will he please provide those answers? My community wants those answers.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to support communities in preventing crime by providing youth and families with positive opportunities and cracking down on criminals. We have taken decisive action to support crime prevention work in communities in this country, including Surrey, British Columbia. We are working with key partners to ensure that they are able to do the best job with the best tools.

As I mentioned, we were pleased to approve an additional 100 RCMP officers to the community of Surrey to combat crime. The member can rest assured that there is a proven process in place to manage these requests for additional resources. What the member can do to show his support for the community of Surrey is to support any our tough on crime measures, as well as economic action plan 2015 and its additional resources for the RCMP.

This is not the time to be playing partisan politics. The people of Surrey North deserve better representation than that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

(The House adjourned at 8:03 p.m.)