Debates of March 9th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I trust the member has received the substantive details of the bill. Quite a bit of work and research goes into developing these kits, so he should please feel free to review it.

What I can speak to is this. The legal system, the justice system that we have in our country exists for a reason. Other nations have similar systems in place, some stronger than ours, some not as strong. It is incumbent upon us to recognize that in the House some of the matters we address, if not all, are sensitive and delicate in nature. We need to be mindful of preventing the creation of a two-tiered citizenship system that degrades the very core of Canadian identity.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the issue around the pathway to citizenship, many barriers have been put up. There are two particular ones which I wonder if the minister could support advancing to her government, and that is to eliminate the financial barrier.

As the minister may know, under the previous government, the application fees for citizens went up significantly, from $100 to $520 for an adult, with an additional $100 for a child, and other associated fees.

In addition, the language proficiency issue is also very onerous for many immigrants. The level has now moved up to a level 4 proficiency, and many immigrants may not be able to pass that test.

Could I have the minister's support to have her government make changes in those two specific areas in order to facilitate the pathway to citizenship for many immigrants who desire it and who would be excellent Canadians?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work toward ensuring that more immigrants feel included in Canadian society.

The government recognizes that integrating and attracting immigrants to our soil is essential to our social, economic, cultural, and environmental prosperity.

To that end, as members may be aware, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has been mandated to enhance our current citizenship and immigration pathways to ensure that they are not just more accessible but also more fair. I look forward to working with all members of this House to achieve that end.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her excellent speech in the House today. I think we can all agree that immigrants have contributed a great deal to this country and have built our great nation.

Unlike some who have commented in the House today, I think it is very fortunate that we have Bill C-6 before us that intends to improve and speed up access to citizenship, which can help immigrants become successful people in our society.

I would also like to make a comment regarding terrorism, which keeps coming up today. We live in a society that has an excellent justice system, so does the minister feel that terrorists should be prosecuted in this justice system, and not be sent overseas to justice systems that may not be as great as ours and that may not have the security we have in place?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, as one of my hon. colleagues has said before, terrorists belong in jails and not on airplanes.

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

Justice

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, on February 24, Michael Phelan, a Federal Court judge in British Columbia, ruled that a regulation on medical marijuana that had been implemented by the former Conservative government was unconstitutional. The federal government now has six months to change the rules.

However, when I questioned the Minister of Justice and got a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on February 25, my question went unanswered. The Liberals had no position on whether they would comply with the ruling and allow people who need medical marijuana to grow the plants themselves at home for their own treatment. We did not get an answer.

According to Justice Phelan, the health and safety of consumers diminished when they were limited to purchasing from licensed producers. The over 100-page document says that “access to cannabis for medical purposes [has] not improved” since the Conservatives' decision.

The NDP's position on medical marijuana is consistent with the Federal Court's ruling. The NDP has always supported the use of medical marijuana.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, chose to play politics with this issue of access to marijuana by imposing regulations to restrict access, which limits people's options and increases costs. We hope that the Liberals will not take the same path.

On a slightly more general note, we are still waiting for the Liberals to consult medical experts, patients, and advocacy groups on this issue. We expect the Liberals to keep the promises they made during the election campaign, and for years before that, to legalize marijuana.

Every time we asked the question, the Prime Minister always said that it would happen during the first year. Contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is saying that it probably will not happen during this government's first term, so perhaps not before the next federal election.

The government is improvising and creating uncertainty. Even police authorities are wondering what they are supposed to do. There are young people right now who have criminal records for simple possession, and it makes no sense. The burden is too heavy for Canadians. Giving someone a criminal record for simple possession is not the goal, nor will it do anything to tackle the drug trafficking that is happening right now.

Furthermore, enforcing the prohibition brought in by the Conservatives will not eradicate organized crime, curb young people's access to the drug, or ensure any kind of control over quality.

Will the Minister of Justice please tell us when the Liberals will actually legalize marijuana, keep their promise, and finally accept the ruling of the judge of the Federal Court of British Columbia on the medical use of marijuana?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon. member opposite for opportunity to clarify some of the issues she raises.

With respect to her initial question concerning the Federal Court decision on the Allard matter, what I subsequently answered, and, frankly, I should have done much better job at and answered the member more directly, was that this is a very complicated decision. It is now in the hands of our Justice officials in consultation with our ministry of health officials.

There is an important discussion taking place between those officials because of our interest in maintaining the safety and health of all Canadians. That review is taking place, and when it is completed a decision will be made by the ministry with respect to how the Federal Court's decision will be dealt with. However, I want to assure the member opposite and the House of our unwavering commitment to work expeditiously to address the public safety and public health concerns of all Canadians.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what has been said.

During the campaign, our Prime Minister was unequivocal. He said that it was our government's intention to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We set our goals on the protection of our children, to reduce and restrict access that children have to this drug, because the overwhelming evidence of the science is that marijuana can be a very unhealthy thing for developing minds in adolescence and young adults. We want to protect our children and believe that can be done far more effectively through a regulatory regime than through criminal sanction.

We also want to take the profits of the illegal marijuana market away from organized crime and reduce its influence on our communities. I can say from experience, having worked in many of our disadvantaged communities, that the level of violence and victimization that takes place in those communities as a direct result of the illegal activity around marijuana takes a terrible toll on those communities. We believe that a strictly regulatory regime based on a public health model will protect our communities, as well as protect our children.

We believe that a public health approach will enable this country to assure all Canadians in all communities that marijuana can be made available legally to responsible adults, but that its production, distribution, retail, and consumption would be controlled by regulation to ensure that we can achieve both our public safety aims and public health aims.

Now the member opposite has also asked the very important question of when this will be done.

Our Prime Minister said that he would begin this work right away, and the work has begun. I have been given direction by my minister to be the government's liaison on this initiative. Our minister has indicated that she is establishing a federal-provincial-territorial task force responsible for the development of these regulations based on research and evidence. That task force is currently being assembled, and I am hoping for an opportunity in the coming weeks to advise the House of the progress we have made.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the work has begun. We would like to know when the Liberals intend to legalize marijuana. Will it be this year? Will it be during the next election? That is what people are confused about right now.

As the parliamentary secretary said, this could take a while because there are consultations and research to be done. In the meantime, young people or others who use marijuana for personal use could be arrested by the police. Given that marijuana is still outlawed, those people could end up with a criminal record.

The Prime Minister himself admitted that he has used marijuana, smoked a joint. He was lucky he was not arrested. He does not have a criminal record or stains on his record, which allows him to be a minister. Not every Canadian is that lucky.

In the meantime, does the Liberal government intend to decriminalize marijuana possession?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the throne speech, the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that marijuana would be legalized, regulated, and restricted in this mandate, and that is the work we are undertaking.

On the issue of decriminalization, I will be very clear. We rely on evidence and the advice of experts. A report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto has indicated that decriminalization is a half measure that will do nothing to reduce the social harms of marijuana, that it does not protect our kids, that it does not take away the profit from organized crime, and that it does not facilitate a robust public health response.

The evidence of other jurisdictions has told us that ineffective half measures, such as decriminalization, will only complicate and undermine the implementation of an effective regulatory regime that will achieve our public health and public safety goals.

Health

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, during question period on January 27, I asked the minister what action she was planning to take to ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act.

Quebec has legalized ancillary fees for public health services even though this practice violates the Canada Health Act. It is unacceptable that people's finances should determine their access to health care.

In November, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wrote to the minister to inform her about this situation, and I have risen twice in the House to ask the minister what the federal government is going to do to put a stop to this practice.

The minister did reply to the letter, but she did not say a word about ancillary health fees even though her mandate letter clearly states that her “...overarching goal will be to strengthen our publicly-funded universal health care system”. To me, strengthening a universal health care system does not mean forcing patients to pay $500 for the use of instruments involved in performing a colonoscopy. Allowing ancillary fees results in unequal access to medical services, and the federal government should intervene to stop this.

If we take a look at some of the ancillary fees that are being charged, we can see some alarming figures: $40 for the application of a four-square-centimetre bandage following a minor surgery, $200 for the insertion of an IUD, $500 for the use of instruments. One need only take a quick glance at the Canada Health Act to know that such practices are against the law.

The law specifically states that provincial and territorial health insurance plans must provide coverage for all medical and hospital services that are medically necessary. Charging ancillary fees for health care services clearly violates the principle of fair and universal health care coverage. In this specific case, the Canada Health Act is not being enforced.

What is more, this system has encouraged health processionals to adopt practices that go against the principles of equity and universality. For example, some doctors' offices charge $300 for $20 eye drops, or $150 just to create a file.

In some cases, the legalization of ancillary fees has led some doctors to violate their code of ethics. This measure violates the principle of equity and is misleading for Quebeckers. We need to stand up for the principle of a free, accessible, and universal health care system.

Allow me to recap. Quebeckers are becoming poorer as a result of the legalization of ancillary fees. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada ranks second in pharmaceutical expenditures per capita. This affects everyone.

This measure affects the quality of life and the health of citizens. In this case, there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor. No one should have to choose between getting treatment and paying rent.

In addition, there is a risk that other provinces could adopt this plan, which would lead to interprovincial medical tourism.

This measure is helping create a two-tier health care system. I ask my colleague once again: what will the minister do to ensure that the public health care system is accessible from coast to coast to coast?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address my colleague's concerns about the federal government's commitment to Canada's health care system and to the Canada Health Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment.

Let me begin by assuring members that the government is fully committed to protecting our publicly-funded health care system and will defend the fundamental tenet that all Canadians should have reasonable access to medically necessary care based on need and not the ability to pay.

In fact, the fear that user charges and extra billing would erode access to needed medical care and lead to a two-tier health care system was the major motivation in the development of the Canada Health Act.

Prior to the act, many Canadian families were left to pay doctor and hospital bills out of pocket. Those who were able to pay received the medical attention they needed, but those without sufficient means either did not get the required care or struggled to find the money to pay for it.

Essentially, the Canada Health Act was brought into force to protect the basic values of fairness and equity that are fundamental to the Canadian identity. The act sets out national standards for provincial and territorial health insurance schemes and promotes these standards by linking federal health funding to them. Our government stands by these national standards and will continue to uphold this commitment to all Canadians.

If physicians charge patients a fee when providing an insured service in their clinics, these charges will contravene the Canada Health Act and will strike at the core principles of public health insurance in Canada. The basic principle of access to health care based on need and not financial ability would be disregarded.

Canadians not only want and expect their governments to work together to preserve, modernize, and strengthen publicly funded health care in Canada but also want them to protect it. Let me again emphasize that it is our government's desire to work in collaboration with the provinces and territories to ensure our publicly-funded health care system is strong and that Canadians have access to the care they need, when they need it.

Some of our greatest achievements as a country, the things that matter most in the daily lives of Canadians, came about when federal, provincial, and territorial governments worked together to forge solutions to complex problems. Medicare is a perfect example of this co-operation and collaboration.

Our government will continue to provide this critical leadership and has already taken the first steps by re-engaging with the provinces and territories. Our health care system represents the best of Canadian federalism. It is flexible enough to respond to the different regional needs, while protecting the national principles that Canadians hold dear.

That is why I say with absolute certainty that our government has always defended medicare and will continue to do so. Canadians should have full confidence in our government's determination and ability to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act. Working with the provinces and territories, our goal is to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to high quality care, regardless of their ability to pay.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary supports the principle that I put forward and that she is concerned about the well-being of Canadians. However, Quebeckers do not have access right now to the health care they need because they cannot afford to pay the fees.

I am very proud to be a member of the party that created medicare. We will continue to be its strongest defenders. We must tirelessly promote the improvements to be made and act quickly. Yes, we must co-operate with the provinces in order to deal with this situation. However, we must act quickly on ancillary fees in Quebec. I can see the faces of those people who, even today, cannot afford these fees.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her important work and passion on this file.

Our government recognizes and values the benefits of a publicly-funded health care system, which promotes equality by ensuring all eligible residents have access to health care services without direct charges, regardless of their economic situation. We recognize that access to medically necessary care is a high priority for all Canadians. We will continue to ensure that Canadians have access to this care based on their need and not their ability to pay.

Our government is re-engaging on health care. We are committed to negotiating a new health accord with the provinces and territories, while also modernizing our Canadian health care system. Canadians can have full confidence in our government's determination and ability to uphold the Canada Health Act and its spirit.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 6:58 p.m.)