Steve Mahoney

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Even if it is fraud?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most disgusting threat I have ever received. If the member wants to come to my riding any time, any place, anywhere and debate me on anything, I would be delighted to have him do so. This should not be about personal attacks, that member trying to intimidate or threaten me.

I did receive Mr. Narvey's memo but I did not receive it from Mr. Narvey. I received it from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo telling me that I should simply agree with everything Mr. Narvey said. Well, I have read it and I do not agree with it.

Let me also say these are the facts. Does the member want to talk about appeal? Does he want to talk about protecting rights? Someone is over the top on this. The process has five different steps and provides at least three opportunities to ask the federal court to judicially review the decisions that are being taken during these steps. The decisions that come out of these judicial reviews can themselves be appealed to the federal court appeal division and to the Supreme Court of Canada with authorization, with leave. That represents a possible total of nine reviews and appeals to the courts, not including the initial judicial review by the federal court at the very beginning of the revocation process.

Some members are over the top because they are allowing emotion and irrationality to influence what they are doing on this bill. As I said before, this should be about celebrating not about personal attacks, threats or intimidation by any member on any side of the House against anyone.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul for his intervention dealing with the issue of equality.

This should actually be a celebration. I am vice-chair of the committee and sat on the committee when we dealt with the controversial Bill C-63. A lot of people appeared and talked to us about their concerns. All issues were raised and put on the floor. Unfortunately the bill was ready to go as Bill C-63 when the House prorogued and it fell off the agenda. When the House came back the bill was brought back in as Bill C-16.

This should be a celebration of the fact that the committee had tremendous input and impact with the minister and the ministry to convince them that there are some things which should be done to increase the value of Canadian citizenship. Instead of celebrating we find ourselves embroiled in a debate over the issue of supposedly creating two classes of Canadian citizens.

I absolutely respect the passion and the strongly held views of my colleagues, but the danger is that we are sending a message to the new Canadian community, to immigrants. When they stand in a citizenship court along with their families, let us say on Canada Day, not too far in the future, and receive their Canadian citizenship which they believe is of tremendous value, we are sending a message that somehow it is devalued compared to someone like me who was born in this country. It is not fair to send that kind of negative, frightening message to people who look forward to celebrating what is for many a rebirth.

I heard that earlier today statements were made in this place that people cannot know what this is about unless they are immigrants to this country. The implication is that those born in this country do not understand the value of Canadian citizenship.

In a former life I stood as a parliamentary delegate to monitor free elections in Croatia for the first time since the war. I saw people with tears in their eyes lining up on the streets to cast their ballots. I could feel their pain. I could feel their enthusiasm, their excitement. I could feel their fear that somehow by the time they got to the ballot box the right would be stripped away, that Tito would jump down from the picture over the ballot box or that the soldier with a gun would prevent them from casting that ballot. The right to vote is one of the benefits of citizenship. I saw firsthand how important it was to those people who had gone through war and terror and hate. I think I can understand that, even though I happen to have been lucky enough to have been born in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

My wife is an immigrant who came to this country from England. It was not under duress, although she might say she was trying to get away from her parents. She came here to seek a better life. She came here as an 18 year old girl, wide eyed and excited about coming to this great country she had heard about. She became a Canadian citizen by choice. If anything, people who choose this country are more special.

If we want to talk about two classes of citizens, it is a little like the statement parents make to their adopted children when they find out that mom and dad are not their biological mom and dad. The statement is always “We chose you. You are very special”. To new Canadians coming to this country, whether from wartorn societies or from places like the U.K., I say thank you for choosing Canada. It is what has built this country.

The bill says that those who come here under false pretences, those who lie, those who knowingly withhold information to whom we in Canada have given this citizenship right, our appreciation of its acceptance and the help to build our society, if we are deceived we must have a mechanism to take back what we consider to be a document and a place in the world of utmost importance and value. Is that a double standard? As my friend has mentioned, we cannot take away a right of birth. To compare the two is not fair.

There are some horrible people. Think about it. Paul Bernardo is still a Canadian citizen. Who would not want to strip that evil person, if we had the power to do so, of Canadian citizenship? But we cannot because he was born here. There are countless others such as Clifford Olson, and we could go on. There are countless people who are bad people and who remain Canadian citizens.

The only option we have is if someone arrives here who it turns out was a war criminal or had committed crimes against humanity. I can imagine the outcry of the Canadian public if the government were held powerless to revoke that person's citizenship, if the government had to rely on a judge to make the decision instead of the duly elected people who represent the people who bestowed Canadian citizenship on the individual in the first place. Canadians give citizenship. Canadians must have the ability, if they have been cheated, to revoke that citizenship.

The second thing that is unfair and which sends a frightening message to the immigrant community and to those applying for Canadian citizenship is the idea that there is no appeal. Let us be clear. The process has five different steps and provides at least three opportunities to ask the federal court to judicially review the decisions being taken during these steps.

I do not want to play semantics but a judicial review is different from an appeal. Here is how it works. The minister issues a letter because the minister has evidence and is satisfied with that evidence that the person has fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. The minister will serve notice on the individual. That individual then has an immediate right to ask the federal court trial division to appeal the minister's letter. That court will call witnesses. That court will listen to evidence. That court will not just look at whether or not the minister has erred in some legal way.

That is the difference. Judicial review tends to look at the process and the specifics of the process, whether or not there was an error in law, whereas one could argue that an appeal basically appeals a decision, making it wide open, introducing new evidence and everything else. Clearly when the federal court trial division holds a judicial review of the minister's letter and notice to the individual, it must and will call witnesses, look at all the evidence and attempt to decide whether or not the decision is a fair one.

This is very interesting because if the court decides that the letter should not have been sent and that there is no problem with the individual, in other words if it finds that the individual did not commit fraud, then the process is over. I hear members opposite and a few on this side saying that is not fair either and that the government should have the right to appeal. We want to walk both sides of the street on this deal. If the government continues to have the right to appeal, there could be a very strong case for harassment.

I just do not understand how one can argue on the one hand that one wants to protect humanitarian rights, and I will come to the humanitarian and compassionate issue, and then on the other hand that we should give the big bad government the right to appeal the decision of a judicial review by the federal court trial division that says there was no fraud. If that happens it is case over, door shut and that person stays as a citizen. It seems to me that is protecting the rights of that individual.

I find it more interesting to have the alliance reform party, or whatever it is called, in opposition to this for these stated reasons. Its members think the power belongs more appropriately in the hands of the judges and not the politicians. We all know that when one wants to denigrate a particular issue the best place to start is by denigrating those who are politicians. We are all a bad lot. We all make decisions with ulterior motives and we cannot be trusted. We hear that.

But I ask those members, what was the position of the opposition in this place when the supreme court in B.C. ruled in favour of that individual who was promoting child pornography? My goodness, how could a judge make such a decision? How could a judge make such a decision? What is their solution? Their solution is simply to invoke the notwithstanding clause, smack the judge over the hand and reverse the decision. By the way, none of us like that decision. In fact we decided to appeal that to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I did not realize I was out of time. I hope we can have further debate on this in a positive, substantive way which will allow for the positive benefits of Bill C-16 to be put forward to the Canadian people.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the annual meeting of the standing committee held in Brussels on April 8, 2000.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks. I find it quite interesting that CEOs of major urban hospitals, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, are paid amounts of money that are really quite surprising. They are paid $400,000 to $600,000, which is four to six times the amount of money that CEOs of entire municipalities are paid. I think his point about transparency and the need to look at it is well taken.

I am a little concerned, however, about the comment that could be taken as castigating all volunteers. It is my view that many of the people who sit on hospital and charitable boards, as well as those who work in the community, do so out of dedication and commitment to the community, not simply so they can talk about it at cocktail parties. Would the member agree with that?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

They are all getting huge salaries.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am probably what one would call a right wing Liberal. I make no apologies for that. In fact, not only am I not embarrassed, I am proud of a government that wiped out a $42 billion deficit and put this country into a sound financial position so that we can in fact deal with the problems in health care. Believe me, we will.

I am used to getting misrepresentation from some members opposite in the official opposition, but it disturbs me when a man of the quality of the member from Regina stands here and says something that he knows is patently false. To say that this government's transfer for health care is 13 cents is just not true. The member knows that in 1977 the federal government reduced its share of the tax base and gave the power to tax for that reduction directly to the provinces. They are called tax points.

The member knows that when we combine cash and tax points the amount being transferred is 33 cents. He says that it used to 50 cents. It was when it started. It was reduced because the provinces increased the number of items being covered down to 41 cents. The real truth here, and let us not play too much with numbers, is that it has gone from 41% down to 33%.

Yes, that needs to be increased. There is no question about it. We will work with the provinces. The one thing I can say is that this government is not about to hand blank cheques to Mike Harris and Ralph Klein so they can turn around and give 30% tax cuts to their wealthy friends without putting that money into health care. We are going to make sure it goes where it is needed.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

He does not want her. I can understand. This is an interesting situation. I thank the NDP for putting the motion forward today. We owe it to all of our constituents to talk about the issue of health care, the issue of bill 11, the issue of whether or not it is enough, the issue of the tax points and the issue of cash transfers. It is very confusing. All my constituents want us to do is to fix the darn system. They do not care much about who is responsible.

Part of the difficulty, however, is that we have this convoluted mechanism called Canada whereby we have entered into agreements. Members opposite know full well that the federal government's role is to collect revenue from around the country and redistribute it to the provinces for various services.

We are not allowed to deal directly under the terms of the constitution and the agreement. It is up to us to provide a certain floor, ceiling or whatever. It is clearly up to the provincial governments to deliver the health care services to the people. All we need do to find out the difficulties is to have a loved one who is involved in it.

Since I am here most of the time, my wife and I, and my wife particularly, are going through the terrible experience of having a family member with a serious illness who is in and out of hospital. She is phoning 911 at three o'clock in the morning and frantically going to the hospital where she is being kept for two or three days and then discharged back into her home. Then it is 911 again and the ambulance costs. I am talking about this occurrence happening five or six times a month every month for the last several months.

We have tried to find out how we can put her into some kind of a care facility to ensure that someone is available to take care of her and can react to it. The waiting lists are incredible. We are talking years, unless one is in a position to do what the former Reform Party and current CA would have us do, that is simply privatize it all. Then if one has the money the waiting list disappears. We do not believe in that. I think this debate is all about a vision for health care.

The New Democrats should always be congratulated for the leadership that some of their former leaders, Tommy Douglas and others, showed in bringing into Saskatchewan and then on to the national stage the necessity for a health care system based on the five principles.

The first one is universality, which means that it is available to all regardless of financial status.

The second is accessibility, which means that we should be able within any kind of reasonable timeframe to access whatever health care is needed.

The third is comprehensiveness, an issue that I think the provinces are flirting with, never mind bill 11. When they start deregulating and decommissioning certain health care services from OHIP, in the case of Ontario, and start saying they will not pay for certain services, in essence they are flirting with damaging the comprehensiveness of the system. That is an issue I have not heard members talk about today. I think it is something we need to watch very carefully.

The fourth is portability, the ability for a Canadian from British Columbia, Nova Scotia or Ontario to access a comprehensive health care plan right across the country.

The fifth and final one is administration. What is the issue there? The issue is that if we do what some would do, if we do what Tom Long, the former leader of the former Reform Party and the former treasurer of Alberta who is a member of the former Reform Party, public administration goes out the window. I am sure hon. members get my point in using the word former.

Why is that important? Canadians know that there must be a sense of control in costs and in what kind of health care is being provided. If it is turned over to the private sector in a for profit scenario, I think we lose that control.

I want to talk about another issue. The New Democrats should be particularly interested in this one. There is a health clinic in my home of Sault Ste. Marie. It is a health clinic that operates on a capitation system. In a city of 80,000 with two hospitals there is also a health clinic. Capitation means it submits a roster, a list of the members of the health clinic, to the provincial government and the provincial government gives the clinic a cheque. It does not operate on the OHIP principle. It operates under capitation.

Who do we think built it? It was not the government. I can tell hon. members that no provincial or federal money was put into the health clinic in Sault Ste. Marie. It was built by the private sector, except that the private sector in this case happened to be the United Steelworkers of America. It was built by the union. It was built with its funds, with its membership money. It was done in the fifties and it was great. The reason I know a bit about it is that my dad was the national director of the union at the time it was built.

I often quote a man named Johnny Barker in Sault Ste. Marie who was a great union leader. He had one of the greatest lines that I like to tell NDP members they should remember. Johnny Barker once said “Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head”. It is a terrific quote and NDP members should think about it more often.

Johnny Barker and my dad built the health clinic in the Soo. Some say it was a fight between Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton. The reason it went to the Soo, they tell me, is that dad and Johnny Barker used to get together and drink the odd glass of pop. They got to be great buddies and they decided the clinic should go to the Soo.

Who knows what the reason was? However, do members know why it was so effective? It was because there was a large membership, which tragically does not exist there any more, that worked at the steel plant. There was a local community that could be harnessed. There was a membership that could be developed and brought in for health care services, and it worked.

I have tried to promote this idea in other communities. I went to the Chinguacousy Health Board in the city of Brampton when I was in the provincial house and suggested that it take a look at the model in the Soo. It is a terrific concept. It involves the community. It makes sure that health care is delivered. It was built with private dollars. It is operated on a not for profit basis and it truly works.

Instead of just putting their blinkers on and saying that under no circumstances will they look at anything, perhaps members of the NDP should take a look at what happened in Sault Ste. Marie. That clinic, which was built with union money, could be a model for many different communities around the country.

In the case of Chinguacousy I thought it made sense to get the CAW and Chrysler involved. Again a certain membership or a group of people could be identified to be involved. Perhaps the region of Peel could have been involved. Unfortunately it did not happen because people still had the grandiose idea that great new hospitals would be built.

We have a wonderful hospital in my riding, the Credit Valley Hospital. We call it the Credit Valley Hilton. Those days are over. We will not be building those kinds of facilities any more. We have to find new ways of delivering both in terms of medical services and in terms of the facilities in which they get delivered. We have to find new ways of doing it.

Instead of just fearmongering and pretending that none of this should be talked about, and that we should just amend the Canada Health Act and punish people, we need to look at news ways and new alternatives. They exist. I invite the NDP members to check the record, talk to the steelworkers and check out the operation in the Sault. I think they will find it is good advice.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was attempting in a very articulate manner to answer the question we could hear cat calls coming across indicating that it was not enough. That is the mantra of the NDP. Perhaps that member should cross back into the NDP fold.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

You know that is not true.