Art Hanger

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Lost your place, eh?

[Petitions, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions bearing 278 signatures.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor person as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole or early release.

Also, for anyone awaiting trial on any such offences mentioned in this petition, the petitioners pray that such a person be held in lawful custody without eligibility for bail or release of any form until such time as the matter is fully concluded in a Canadian court of law.

[Justice, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am still not clear whether or not the minister is going to deport this person. We are talking about a safety issue here.

This is an urgent matter. Beltran is to appear before an immigration adjudicator tomorrow who will decide if he is to be deported or released back into the community. Beltran's juvenile criminal record is as follows: possession of an unrestricted weapon, possession of heroin, intimidating witnesses, assault, and obstructing justice.

The people of Calgary want this person removed. Will the minister use section 44 of the Young Offenders Act, obtain Beltran's violent juvenile criminal record, declare him dangerous and have him deported so the people of Calgary will be at ease?

[Justice, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Walter Beltran is serving a sentence for breaking and entering and possession of a narcotic. While in jail he compiled a list of 150 young girls and women in the Calgary area and systematically harassed them over the phone from his jail cell. The victims' families and other community members are shocked that Beltran could get away with this kind of terrorism and fear his pending release.

My question is for the immigration minister. Since Walter Beltran is not a Canadian citizen, will the minister ensure that this violent criminal is deported without delay?

[Petitions, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition bearing the names of 50 petitioners.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring anyone who has been convicted a second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor person as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole or early release. Also, for anyone awaiting trial on any such offences mentioned in the petition the petitioners pray that such a person be held in lawful custody without eligibility for bail or release of any form whatsoever until such time as the matter is fully concluded in a Canadian court of law.

[Income Tax Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the intent of Motion No. 30. I am pleased to see an initiative to support the family coming from the other side of the House. It is support to increase personal freedom

and choice and to recognize the importance of allowing individuals to exercise responsibility over their own affairs.

To remind the House, Motion No. 30 reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

One of the most important effects of this motion is its impact on child care. The present tax situation discriminates against parents who choose to stay at home with their children. We in the Reform Party believe that the care of children falls within the domain of families and that parents must have full responsibility in Canadian society to nurture and provide for children.

Current federal government programs are intrusive and restrict the choices that parents may make in deciding on the best type of care for their children. The role of government, on the other hand, is to provide a fair tax and benefit system that provides parents with the opportunity to properly care for their children in the manner of their choosing.

Unfortunately this motion's sponsor was right when he predicted that his colleagues would stand up and declare that their paltry subsidies to stay at home parents are sufficient. This statement in and of itself is ridiculous. It is even more shameful when placed in contrast to the amount of provision made available to parents who place their children in day care.

Parents are very frustrated today in that they would like to spend more time with their children but they cannot. One of the reasons is that they cannot afford to have one parent stay at home with the children because they need two incomes to survive.

An Angus Reid survey indicated that 45 per cent of women and 55 per cent of men were in agreement with the question that if they could afford to, they would stay at home with their children. Furthermore, 57 per cent of parents with younger children said they would work primarily to make ends meet and would stay at home if they could.

In the same survey, 25 per cent of women and 24 per cent of men agreed with the statement: "I feel guilty about the amount of time I spend at work away from my kids". Among parents with children under 12, the proportion who agree with this statement rises to 32 per cent. Twenty-five per cent of women and twenty-two per cent of men agreed with the statement: "I am too tired when I get home to spend quality time with the kids".

Our children are our future, the future of this country, and here we have parents lamenting about the opportunities lost for spending time with their kids. This government has recognized it. The member for Mississauga South has certainly analysed the tax system and his statement is clear: "What is worse is that a deduction is worth more to a high income earner than a low income earner. For example, someone who makes $60,000 a year and pays $5,000 for child care space receives a refund cheque from the government for $2,600. However, if someone makes only $30,000 and incurs the same $5,000 cost, their refund is only $1,800. That is an $800 difference when both taxpayers incurred the same expense for child care costs".

In other words, I gather the intent from this member's motion was to alleviate the tax burden of the stay at home parents. He recognizes it but not everyone on that side of the House does.

Whether this inequity was set up intentionally to discriminate against parents who choose to provide home care is irrelevant. It exists. The fact is it does discriminate. Despite evidence of this, the government has made no effort to develop a policy that treats all families equally, affording them the independence and freedom of choice they desire in areas of legitimate concern.

We are hearing more and more of those concerns all the time on the social side, parents lamenting about not being able to spend that time with their children.

It is imperative that this discrimination be ended. I would encourage all parliamentarians to do this by endorsing, to some degree, this motion. It should have some amendments to it. They should endorse this motion or one similar.

The same sort of discrimination occurs in the provision of care for the elderly and the infirm. Once again, the government claims to have a system in place that is sufficient for helping families that want to care for their ailing members at home.

Despite the fact that even for pragmatic economic reasons, Canadian governments are moving in the direction of encouraging more home care options, there is no evidence that the federal Liberals are planning to adjust the tax system to make home care an economically viable option for individual Canadian families. It is just not in the cards with this Liberal government.

According to the government, the infirm dependent credit which can generate savings of up to $400 or $8 a week is sufficient to help the average Canadian family know its choice to care for elderly parents at home is not being subject to financial discrimination or penalty.

That is a paltry amount when we look at the costs of home care and the cost to the federal government or provincial governments, even local governments, to care for the elderly. There should be greater consideration given to those people who want to look after their elderly parents at home through a tax break. That is not happening.

According to the government, the present circumstances surrounding the medical expenses credit do not require changing. This is in addition to the medical expenses to the home care provisions.

The 17 per cent credit for expenses in excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of the net income is available to all Canadians, but for those who have employer paid health plans this benefit can be added to cover uninsured costs, while most Canadians have to get by on this paltry credit alone.

In other words, for those who have a government health care program or a group health care program through one of their businesses compared to those who do not, the ones who have a group health care plan of course benefit from this and those who do not really have to foot the bill themselves. I do not think that has been covered adequately by not only government but by the health plans available right now.

Having expressed support in principle for the motion, I want to state clearly the need for far more tax reform than the cut and paste approach the present system is bound to.

The Reform Party has committed itself to real substantive tax reform in the form of a simple, flat and visible tax. This system will do away with the gross inequities that are part of the present system, including discrimination against home care, of preschool children and the disabled and elderly.

The member for Vegreville pointed out some of those tax breaks. I do not believe I have to repeat them.

Reform's final flat tax policy will start with a sizeable personal tax credit that will protect a larger number of low income individuals from income taxes. An additional credit will be provided for each child. We want to move that credit up from $3,000 to $5,000.

Reform is the only federal party today which offers a comprehensive fiscal alternative to the discriminatory priorities of the present government which clearly has no regard for millions of Canadian families struggling under the economic burden that is growing under this Liberal administration. We want to work in partnership with the Canadian taxpayer. That is what governments should do. That partnership involves providing tax relief to all taxpayers.

[Committees Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Turn around ask them. They are right behind you.

[House Of Commons, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the issue I address today relates to the investigative and probative powers of committees. I certainly applaud the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for his very informative review of the rights of the House and its committees. Too often it is forgotten that Parliament is the highest court of the land and that the committees as creatures of this House are component bodies of the high court.

In the discharge of our duties as parliamentarians to carry out our mandate it is imperative that committees be given the unfettered right of the House to compel attendance and subpoena witnesses, and such powers must be afforded every committee and every full member of these bodies.

I listened intently to the Bloc member relate the circumstance regarding the subcommittee on national security and the efforts that committee went through to get full evidence before the committee. It should not be the case.

Unfortunately I must report that my personal experience with committees has not been consistent with the high goals advanced in this motion. Take the recent cased put before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on which I serve as a full member. It was advanced that the standing committee use its probative and investigative powers to study a certain matter of alleged employment insurance fraud and report its findings to Parliament.

It was explained that Elizabeth Roux of Montreal went to the University of Southern California in September 1994 but kept collecting employment insurance benefits to the tune of $5,200 until January 1995. It was further presented that the RCMP was called in to investigate the matter. It determined that Roux "did by trickery, lies and other misleading methods defraud the Canadian government". I explained to our committee that the RCMP recommended that charges be laid.

I also presented evidence that the Montreal office of Human Resources Development Canada also recommended trying Roux. The department sees hundreds of cases a year of EI recipients studying or vacationing outside the country while continuing to collect benefits in violation of the law requiring claimants to be actively seeking and readily available for work.

The Roux case would appear on the surface to be just like any other case but it is more involved. Many of these EI snowbirds and scholars cost Canadians at least $60 million annually. They are such a problem that human resources recently began cross-referencing EI records with customs declarations Canadians file when they return to the country to help them spot the cheats.

I also explained to my committee colleagues that most fraud cases of this type have accomplices, someone back home, usually a close friend or relative who collects the EI cheques and forwards them to the absentee claimant. In Roux's case her partner in deception was her mother who mailed her daughter's false declarations of employability to the EI office from Montreal so they could be postmarked in Canada. She then collected Roux's cheques and deposited them in a joint mother-daughter bank account.

I explained to the committee that charges are almost always laid against accomplices even if the unlawfully obtained benefits are paid back as was the case with Roux. There is in effect a zero tolerance policy. In the case of globetrotting claimants they are invariably fined and almost always charged with fraud.

I imparted to the committee that most Canadians would expect that Roux and her mother would be charged. But they were not. Justice department lawyers refused to proceed. Coincidentally Roux's mother is a Canadian senator, Senator Therésè Lavoie-Roux. Senator Lavoie-Roux was a provincial Liberal cabinet minister for 12 years and it was apparent that her pedigree and political connections may have very well factored into the decision not to lay charges.

Herein is the issue. Two independent federal organizations, the RCMP and the human resources fraud investigators, recommended that charges be laid. Immediately thereafter the justice department, inexplicably, refused to lay charges. The subject of the investigation had real and substantive ties to the political process and the standing committee refused to allow an investigation.

That the government in power would use its majority to suppress my motion for parliamentary investigation into a matter as important as the case illustrated today demonstrates the need to effect the goals advanced in the motion we debate today.

No one can tell me that the Liberal government does not recognize the need to have a more open process in the committee. In fact, the subject for debate prior to Private Members' Business dealt with the promises of the red book. The Liberal red book promises point to several sore spots which need to be corrected.

I noted yesterday that clearly in the preamble to the red book there is a concern on the part of the Liberal government that there have to be some changes. It reads: "Mounting criticism of the House of Commons and its proceedings reflects the frustration of citizens and parliamentarians alike with the continuing failure of Parliament to address effectively the problems that face us". It continues: "Canadians, including those who are elected to serve Parliament, expect the House of Commons not merely to discuss openly the problems of the nation, but also to advance solutions".

Time and again the public has viewed parliamentarians and senators as being above the law. This has been questioned on numerous occasions and there have been regular press reports on these cases.

I will continue to quote from the second paragraph of the preamble to the red book: "They expect the Commons to explore Canada's problems rationally and to establish policies for resolving them. These expectations are not met". That is the statement made by the Liberal government in its red book. I do not believe it is being met adequately.

Parliament must remain the highest court in the land. We the elected officials must possess the tools to carry out our duties and to ensure that justice and the law apply equally to all Canadians. By refusing the right of our committee to investigate the matter of fraud, for instance, involving Senator Lavoie-Roux, the members opposite who serve on the justice and legal affairs committee have contravened the spirit and substance on which the motion which we are debating is founded.

An article in the Edmonton Sun reports that these occasions will hit the press time and time again. I will quote briefly from the Edmonton Sun , the press' view as outlined with the information at hand: ``The RCMP reportedly recommended laying charges, as did the Montreal office of Human Resources Development Canada. But the justice minister says his department has looked into the case and found insufficient evidence to warrant charges. Last week the Liberals used their majority in the Commons to defeat a Reform demand for a parliamentary investigation. Lavoie-Roux claims there was no attempt to defraud. She did not know there are EI rules against making claims while resident in another country''.

"From a former social services minister this is impossible to swallow", the press said. "She didn't see a problem. Why not mail the claims then from California if there was no problem? We could demand to know why mother and daughter have not been charged. Unfortunately that is rather obvious".

Situations of this nature bring the whole parliamentary system into disrepute. If this motion is to have any meaning, Senator Lavoie-Roux, should be called before a committee, questioned by its members and the findings reported back to Parliament.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Or the non-performance, as pointed out. I think the member for Vancouver North expressed it quite well in outlining all the broken promises.

I too had an opportunity to look at point No. 10 which was the reason for this debate today. Point No. 10 deals with the independence of the Chair and the reduction in the level of partisanship. Those are certainly worthy statements to make.

I also looked a little further. As the member for Vancouver North mentioned, in the early part of the Liberal red book it states that mounting criticism of the House of Commons and its proceedings reflect the frustration of citizens and parliamentarians alike with the continuing failure of Parliament to address effectively the problems that face us.

Here we have a statement in the red book with some definite outlines which the Liberals say they are going to change. Unfortunately, as the member for Vancouver North outlined, they are not going to do that. They have already fallen short on their promises and it has only been three years.

In the Reform Party's platform we outline two visions of Canada, an old vision and a new vision. The old vision is about the Liberals and the Conservatives and how they like big government, how they like to spend, how they like to increase taxes and how they like to feed the big spending machine that was created by them.

I would like the member for Vancouver North to outline the new vision of Canada that Reformers would like to see. I would encourage him to give in as much detail as possible the new vision that we see for Canada.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's comments in reference to this amendment quite enlightening. It is always good to hear the performance of the government.