Art Hanger

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill which if successful and sufficiently improved could be a good first step in ensuring the quick deportation of foreign born criminals.

I appreciate the work the Canadian Police Association has done on the bill. I appreciate that my colleague from the Liberal Party was brave enough to sponsor it. Clearly the goals of the bill are not shared by the minister of immigration. If they were, these measures would have been amended to Bill C-44 when it was up for debate.

The minister knew the recommendations of the Canadian Police Association but chose not to act on them. He chose to ignore these common sense measures which, when the legal language is cleared up by a competent lawyer, would take a small step toward ensuring non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada will make two stops after they leave the court room, one to the prison and one to the airport where, unless Canadian immigration allows them to run away on the tarmac as was the case last week, they will be sent where they belong, out of Canada.

The bill has a lot of serious problems that will require serious study and fixing before the bill can be made effective. I trust it is the intention of my colleague to work on these weak points. I hope the bill is not window dressing, the sort of smoke and mirrors tactics the minister of immigration loves to engage in.

My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin dealt with the bill's problems admirably during the last hour of debate. I will not beat that dead horse. However, before the bill goes any further it is necessary to look at the big picture of deportations. It is necessary to understand what the Reform Party wants to see with deportation policy.

The Reform Party's stand on non-citizen criminals is clear, simple and in line with what the majority of Canadians want, something the minister for immigration would have a hard time understanding. Our policy for non-citizen criminals would not result from bargaining with special interests or with refugee lawyers but from consulting with our members, our constituents and with the people of Canada.

I am sure my hon. colleague, the sponsor of the bill, understands what the people are saying on immigration matters. I understand a lot of Liberal backbenchers are feeling the heat from their constituents. It is too bad they cannot do anything about it. It is too bad they have to toe the Liberal Party line.

We believe that the people who have not exercised a claim to Canadian citizenship or who have not lived in the country long enough to claim citizenship and who commit serious crimes have violated a moral contract entered into with the people of Canada.

The Reform Party believes that immigration to Canada is a privilege, not a right. We believe that the people of Canada, the citizens of Canada, have the collective right to determine who comes into Canada, how many people are allowed to come into Canada and under what conditions.

A newcomer to this country enters into a moral contract with Canada. There are several terms of that contract. The most important of them is that the newcomer must abide by the laws of this country. There is nothing that angers my constituents like recently arrived immigrants to Canada who commit crime. That drives them up the wall, and rightly so. Canadians collectively have the right to be morally outraged when the wonderful gift of Canadian residency is extended and then the recipient of that gift violates our laws.

We are above all else a nation of laws. That defines Canada. We demand of anyone who immigrates here that those laws are to be respected. That is a demand. When someone ignores that demand, violates the moral contract with Canadians and makes a

mockery of the Canadian generosity by breaking the law, then that person should be removed quickly and permanently.

I challenge the government. I challenge the immigration minister and the Prime Minister to poll Canadians, ask Canadians if they feel that newcomers who break the law should be removed quickly and permanently. Mr. Speaker, I will bet you Sergio Marchi's pension that they will say yes.

[Ebola Virus, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is the same kind of babble we heard yesterday.

Canadians need to know if they have a Minister of Health and a Minister of Immigration who have the wherewithal to take direct proactive measures to protect the health of Canadians.

There is a simple solution to all of this. Will the immigration minister put Canadians' minds at ease by stopping the threat at the source? Will he place a temporary moratorium on visitors' visas from Zaire and surrounding regions until this disease is safely contained there?

[Ebola Virus, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, phone lines have been lighting up in my office in Ottawa and in my constituency over the Ebola virus. People believe that they are not being protected by their own government. They are frustrated with the health minister's non-answers to direct questions.

Now that we have the minister in a forum where she cannot run away, I ask the minister why she chose to withhold information from Canadians regarding the number of people who have been detained at Pearson because they were suspected of carrying the Ebola virus.

[Immigration, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to date 81 of 87 members of a Chinese investment delegation who came to Canada on visitors visas have disappeared and gone underground. It seems they were well aware of the government's let them all in immigration policy and the minister's generosity.

Now some of the delegates have turned up to make refugee claims. Now they are entitled to free health care, welfare and lawyers at taxpayers' expense.

This episode should serve as a warning. Next year the immigration minister in his infinite wisdom will be issuing visas and the health minister will be handing out $1 million to bring to Canada 500 AIDS sufferers from the third world to attend a conference in Vancouver.

Since AIDS sufferers have been granted refugee status already in Canada, the question is not if some of the 500 AIDS sufferers will jump ship and make a refugee claim, but how many.

I call on the government to use a little common sense. Enforce the law. Do not give visitors visas when Canadian safety is at stake.

[Immigration, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Association released a new poll that confirms that even after having broken every promise it made to Canadians on immigration, this government is still woefully out of touch.

Seventy-six per cent thought bogus refugees should be turned around at the border with no appeal, and the majority agreed with the Reform Party that civil servants and not politically appointed friends of the minister should determine refugee status.

Will the minister finally listen to Canadians, put their interests first and scrap the Immigration and Refugee Board?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill which is about more than the pensions that some members of Parliament will collect, much more. The bill reflects a difference in beliefs about the role of a parliamentarian and about the relationship between government and those who are governed.

It might seem like a bit of an exaggeration to say that a bill dealing with pension reform reflects ideals about the very nature of governance in a democratic society. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all. Furthermore, with the benefit of time, the people of Canada will agree with me that the position taken by MPs on the bill reflects how they feel about their position in government. It tells a story about how they feel about their constituents. It even tells a story about how they feel about democracy.

Let me explain. Canadians become a little sensitive when their politicians use U.S. examples. Nonetheless it is impossible to deny that U.S. experience provides us with an example of how representative democracy works: its problems and its benefits.

In the greatest document ever written to defend American democracy, the federalist papers, the authors speak in paper No. 35 of the qualifications of representatives in government. They write that representatives should be members of various classes of people from society and economy; that those people should be chosen by a majority of their constituents; that those people should be inspired by a desire to protect the interests of their class in the economy, to represent their communities; that those people should be elected for a very limited period of time, after which they should return to their former positions in the economy, back to their former places in life. People elected to government should be inspired and motivated to go into public life by a sincere commitment to their communities. They should expect nothing more than to represent their families, friends and neighbours.

The model from the federalist papers does not speak of a class of professional politicians. No, the ideal politician is a real person from the real world who takes a short time out of his or her life to do his or her patriotic duty and represent his or her community with enough remuneration to survive but not enough to prosper. That would have to wait until his or her limited time in government was over and he or she returned to a former profession.

That is one model or one vision of what the government and legislators should do. There is another, that of the professional legislative class, one where legislators are not so much chosen as they are born or made and where there are different incentives to get into politics. I am not referring to the incentives of patriotism or a willingness to sacrifice for one's community but an ambition to achieve power, to establish oneself in powerful circles and to make money. Representation of the people for this kind of politician is nothing more than saying the right things to avoid being voted out of office and thereby losing the security, power and prestige that public life offers.

That is the sort of politician Canadians have learned to dislike so passionately. Canadians are more disillusioned than ever about their politicians. Politicians consistently rank at the bottom of public opinion poll surveys. People do not like us. When I ask my constituents what they do not like about politicians I consistently get the same answers: "Politicians are only in it for themselves. They only want to make money and get power. They lie all the time just to stay in office". That is quite a commentary.

Is it any wonder people are fed up with politicians? Members of the House have expanded their powers, expanded their salaries and expanded their pensions without ever consulting the people of Canada. Members have expanded their power and their purses. They have created what some of the founders of modern democracy hope to avoid: the creation of a professional class of politicians more concerned about their comfort than about the needs of the community and the country. In other words, the politicians have become Ottawa's messengers to the constituents.

Here we are debating this pension reform bill. Some reform. This debate and the divergent attitudes and opinions of the two sides of the House-and I am not including the Bloc in my comments since it is absurd for the Bloc to even be participating in this debate-reflect more than just a different administrative view of how pensions should operate. They reflect a fundamentally different view of how Canadian democracy should operate.

The Reform Party believes in the first model of representation: non-professional politicians who represent their communities out of a sense of duty and patriotism, politicians who expect nothing more than to return to their stations in life with a nod from their communities and the occasional "job well done". We want nothing more than to be given enough remuneration to survive while we are here and then go home to our communities with respect.

The Liberals on the other hand are concerned more about providing themselves with perks, power and pensions, pensions which have become the flashpoint of voter anger, and rightly so. Why should parliamentarians receive pensions which are richer than anything the private sector could even dream of? Why should citizens who are taxed to the max be forced to pay for this unbelievable scheme? The politicians in power across the way do not believe that politics should be about sacrifice for the country. They think the country should sacrifice for them. Liberal politicians do not ask what they can do for Canada, they ask what Canada can do for them. That bothers Canadians. That causes Canadians to lose faith in the political process.

The Reform Party's philosophy on pension reform is simple: do not give us one. Leave us alone. Go ahead and take the cushy pensions. Go ahead and force the taxpayer to cough up $4 for every one. Clearly, that is what members across the way are saying, but leave us alone.

If their vision of democracy and representation is one which includes establishing a permanent class of highly paid, highly pensioned, highly perked politicians, then so be it. Let us represent our constituents the way we want. Allow us to be servants of the people rather than demanding that the taxpayers serve us. Let our visions co-exist. Let them compete. Then let the voters decide come the next election. We are more than happy with that.

This pension reform bill does not do that. It forces the next crop of Reform MPs to take this ultra rich pension package whether they want it or not. How absurd. How cynical.

Canadians want responsible government. They want responsible governors, people they can trust, people who will serve willingly because they want to serve, not because they want to retire after a few years on tens of thousands of dollars indexed to inflation. Being a member of Parliament is an opportunity to leave an indelible mark on this great country. It is an opportunity to give something back to the communities which have given us all so much. It is a privilege.

The current pension plan and the new pension package is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to all constituents and all communities. I urge my fellow members on both sides of the House to take a step toward restoring representation with integrity to Canada. Take a step in the direction of restoring trust. Vote no on the bill and vote yes to integrity and trust. I am going to opt out of the plan.

Given the lack of interest on the Liberal side and the many inadequacies of Bill C-85, I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1995]

What were the acceptance versus rejection rates of each of the Immigration and Refugee Board regional hearing offices in December 1994 and January 1995 versus the same period a year earlier?

[Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the final five petitions contain 475 signatures.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next five petitions contain 456 signatures.

The petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow suicide and euthanasia.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have 15 petitions.

The first five petitions contain 324 signatures. The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.