Jay Hill

[The Grumman Goose, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1994 I rose in the House to call on the government to delay the sale of the Grumman Goose while a dedicated group of Canadians in Prince George raised money to keep it in Canada.

This RCMP plane was built in 1944 and can land on water, snow or ground and has logged over 24,000 flying hours. It has seen service on both coasts, in Ottawa and the high Arctic. It has been used for drug busts, surveillance, rescues and air shows in addition to ferrying people and equipment.

I am pleased to report the federal and B.C. governments listened to the Save the Goose committee. Through the committee's efforts this piece of Canadian heritage has been saved for the enjoyment of future generations.

Today at 3 p.m. a retired RCMP pilot will formally hand over the log books of the Grumman Goose to the National Aviation Museum. I invite all members and the public to attend the ceremony.

[Immigration Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this evening on Bill C-316. As has been pointed out by many hon. colleagues who have already spoken to the bill, there are a number of problems with it. However the private member bringing it forward did not have access to a battery of lawyers or experts in the departments of justice or immigration to point them out.

The role of private members is to bring good ideas for legislation forward. It is the role of the House and the committee to which it is assigned to improve it and make it workable. In this case I believe the member for Cambridge has focused the attention of the House on a problem Canadians want to see solved. It is now our job to ensure the bill makes it to committee where we will have the benefit of the expertise of departmental officials who have been studying the issue. I am sure the hon. member would agree to changes that maintain the spirit and intent of the bill while making it legally defensible.

Canadians want non-citizens who commit abhorrent crimes deported. It is our duty as their elected representatives to ensure the bill does not get buried in committee. We must send a clear message to other criminals who believe they are living in a land where there are relatively light consequences for breaking the law.

If we have the political will we can overcome any road blocks. By failing to act in an expeditious manner to treat the deportation of non-citizen criminals as a high priority, the government is not acting in the best interest of the safety of Canadians.

Canadians want to see criminals dealt with decisively. They will be much more willing to accept the fact that the vast majority of immigrants respect our laws if they see a government commitment to immediate deportation of those who break them.

I have heard Liberal colleagues across the way say that sentencing foreign criminals to deportation would be cruel and unusual punishment under the charter. Frankly, if they do not respect any of our other laws, they can exercise their charter rights somewhere else in the world.

The charter of rights has an implied charter of responsibilities. We already treat non-citizens differently by denying them the right to vote. We already deny convicted criminals the freedom of mobility. I do not think it is beyond the spirit or intent of the charter to deny non-citizens convicted of violent crimes or drug trafficking the right to remain in Canada.

In the meantime too many criminals are tying up our legal system and slipping out the side door while we bend over backward to apply the charter to protect their rights. The charter seems to be the only piece of legislation some criminals are aware of. Our charter is supposed to be a shield to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, not a sword to be used against us by criminals who do not respect any of our other laws.

In the time remaining I should like to focus on a couple of matters I believe should be looked at when the bill goes to committee. One problem is the section that allows for the deportation of dependants. This clause must be looked at. For example, what if the non-citizen was convicted of first degree murder of his or her spouse. We would hardly want to deport the children with the convicted parent. We would want to consult with family and friends to determine the safest home for them, be that in Canada or in the country of origin.

It has also been argued that by having the sentencing judge issue the removal order it makes deportation a punishment rather than merely an administrative option available to the government.

The objection is then made that we are not treating non-citizens the same as citizens and therefore they are being doubly punished for the same crime. That objection can be dealt with. The sentencing judge could be responsible for delivering the crown's administrative decision that deportation proceed. Then we could eliminate the inquiry stage.

The bill also prevents appeals through the immigration appeals division. It is trying to make sure non-citizens do not disappear between the end of their prison sentence and the immigration appeal hearing.

For example, in August, Montreal papers reported the story of Patrick Baptiste who was under deportation orders for drug dealing but not surprisingly failed to show up at the hearing when his appeal was rejected. The police caught up with him a few months later. Only this time he was implicated in planning a murder. Now that his deportation appeal has been rejected, I hope when he

finishes his current jail term he will not be given a chance to escape again.

His is not an isolated case. According to a Gazette article a special task force made up of RCMP and immigration officers has identified 1,888 convicted criminals ordered deported who remained here. Twelve hundred were serious criminals, liable to more than 10 years imprisonment. Those are ones the bill is trying to deal with. As of August one-third had either left the country or had been deported. Another third, 671 of the 1,888, had appealed their deportation orders or claimed refugee status and a further 300 are still missing.

Despite eliminating a right to appeal through the immigration appeals division under clause 3 of section 32.1 unfortunately the bill adds an automatic appeals process under the Criminal Code. This would certainly have to be amended should the bill go further.

By allowing an automatic appeal hearing it would actually be a small step back from the Bill C-44 changes and I do not believe Bill C-44 went far enough. In addition to violent offenders, non-citizens who are habitual criminals should also be denied the right of appeal.

I view the three years before a landed immigrant takes out citizenship as a probationary period. Canadians have welcomed them into our house and have given them the opportunity to become part of our family. If they do not respect our laws they have broken their contract with us.

Why do we wait a minimum of three years before granting citizenship? Is it just so new immigrants have time to learn the name of our Prime Minister or how many provinces there are? Surely we place greater value on Canadian citizenship than that.

Habitual criminals, drug traffickers and violent criminals are not welcome. How many times should someone be allowed to break our law before we show them the door? When we show them door because they have committed a serious criminal offence in Canada, they should not be allowed to come back in.

Just today the paper reported on a criminal who has been deported from Canada five times at an average cost of $50,000. That is $250,000 taxpayers have had to pay for this one case. He was first granted landed immigrant status in 1975 and by 1976 had been convicted of theft. He was deported in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. Then he came back in 1990 and claimed refugee status. Now he is an arsonist, setting fires in public malls.

I am encouraged to see that immigration officials have taken the unusual step of trying to appeal his refugee status. The problem is that other criminals we deport also come back claiming refugee status. This is a loophole Bill C-316 does not plug.

Even the UN High Commission for Refugees does not support asylum shopping. That is exactly what it is when people who have already been deported return to Canada claiming they are refugees.

During 1993-94 according to Correctional Service Canada there were over 1,000 foreign nationals serving time in our prisons. At an average cost of almost $46,000 this amounts to almost $50 million. The auditor general estimated the real cost of maintaining someone in prison was closer to $80,000. This means it costs taxpayers around $80 million to keep foreign nationals in prison every year.

To put this in another context, the entire immigration department including enforcement, settlement, language training for new immigrants and so on has been ordered to cut $54 million from its budget over the next couple of years.

In conclusion, despite the problems the member has made a valiant attempt to address a serious issue. Let us take the bill to committee where we will have the advice and expertise of departmental officials and counsel to improve it so that we can bring it back to the House.

Immigration officials are studying ways of streamlining deportation of criminals, but it could be another year or two before the minister brings a comprehensive plan forward. Let us work on the problem now using the bill before us as the vehicle.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

That is a crock.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

I listened in this House to his defence of this gold plated plan. He seems to believe that when members are ultimately defeated, retire, or quit they end up on skid row. I do not know of any retired MPs who are on skid row or on welfare rolls. I would be interested to know their names if the hon. member is aware of some.

Further, he addressed the whole issue of the salary and the total remuneration package. I said in a speech on this bill that if we are going to address the salary issue, let us address it separately. Let us not confuse pension with salary. That is what the members are saying.

I beg to differ. My hon. colleague from Calgary did not suggest that we should be paid $30 an hour. He suggested that we make the system transparent, that we roll everything in and do not have any special concessions built into the wage package. He said he does not believe we should have tax free allowances, that we should all be the same. That is what he was trying to drive at, and I support that. Let us make the system that pertains to MPs exactly the same as for all the rest of Canadians. Let us have a transparent system. We pay taxes the same as everyone else, and we should not have a two-tiered pension plan in this country.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

That is right. The simple answer is no. One would think the government with its penchant for political correctness would want to do the right thing. Unfortunately when Liberals are doing the right thing it

means they are only addressing public perceptions, not reality. These are the Liberal code words for entrenching inequality.

The last time I heard someone use those words in the House it was the Liberal member opposite from Halifax. She said that her government was doing the right thing when defending the inclusion of special protection based on sexual orientation in Bill C-41.

First the Liberals argued that jail terms and community service were supposed to be deterrents. They then told judges to increase sentences if the victim fell into one of the categories listed in section 718.2, such as having a different sexual orientation than the person committing the assault. If longer and harsher sentences are supposed to be a deterrent and certain victims incur those longer sentences, does that not sound like special protection? Does it not smack of inequality when some Canadian lives are worth more than others?

The Liberals are now doing what they call the right thing with MP pensions. They are making cosmetic changes and protecting their own fully indexed MP retirement funds at the same time as they are talking about reducing RRSP contribution levels for other Canadians and pondering how long the Canada pension plan will survive. That sure sounds like a two-tier pension system to me. Every time I hear the phrase doing the right thing from a Liberal it means make some people more equal than others. In this case it is retired MPs.

When a Reformer talks about doing the right thing we mean equality for all Canadians. This means equal protection before the law, equal pay for the same job, equal opportunity and equal treatment of pension plans under the Income Tax Act. Why should MPs be exempted from the pension rules they impose on other Canadians?

During the review of Bill C-85 in the House procedures committee only seven witnesses were heard. I find it incredible that the committee tried to prevent the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation from attending. These groups have spent considerable time reviewing MPs pensions and were instrumental in drawing the excesses of the plan to the attention of the media and the public. To deny them the opportunity to speak is unconscionable.

In fact only six witnesses were invited. Not to be thwarted, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation showed up in any event. The committee had no choice but to hear the association or be faced with a major media scandal.

The amazing thing is that even the carefully selected witnesses all agreed this was an extremely generous plan. While proposing an MP RRSP plan one witness said:

You live by the same rules you make for other Canadians.

If MPs were reliant on a similar RRSP pension plan they might be a little more cautious about the laws they pass that will affect all Canadians.

According to the Income Tax Act pension plans must comply with certain criteria to be valid. One such criterion is a limit on the accrual rate. It can be no more than 2 per cent of the final three-year average salary. It is also only payable after the age of 60.

The government is acting as if it has made major concessions in the MP pension plan and in Bill C-85. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister proudly pointed out, the pension plan will reduce the existing accrual rate by 20 per cent. At first that sounds great. All it really means is that the accrual rate was dropped from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. Yes, that is a 20 per cent reduction, but it is still 100 per cent more than the 2 per cent accrual rate all other Canadians are allowed under the Income Tax Act.

Further, the Income Tax Act states that such a pension scheme is only payable after the age of 60. The government has decided that only applies to other Canadians. Members are eligible at 55.

In the past MPs who served six years were eligible to collect the pension no matter how young they were; 36-year-olds could collect. I would hardly consider that selfless service in the interest of the public good. How many other Canadians receive a substantial pension after six years in the job? Surely it is an indication that the plan has been exceedingly generous for far too long. Moving the age of eligibility to 55, not 60 like the rest of Canadians, is considered a significant step by the government.

I applaud the government on increasing the age of eligibility to age 55, but why did it not go that small step further to 60 so that the MP pension plan complies with the Income Tax Act?

Apparently it will save taxpayers $3.3 million in the first year. How much more will be saved in the future because all Reformers will opt out? More important, the government is acting like taxpayers will continue to realize significant savings. Under the plan taxpayers will contribute $3.60 for every $1 an MP contributes.

There is one promise we intend to keep. When Reform is elected government following the next election, we will really be reforming this travesty into a pension plan that is completely compatible with that of the private sector, and we will be making it retroactive.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I notice members opposite making fun of the tie which I happen to be wearing. The tie is for the benefit of members opposite. It is what is commonly referred to by many of my constituents as the piggy plan, not the pension plan.

At the outset I inform the House that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.

Why is the Liberal government changing the MP pension plan? We would think it would be doing it for reasons of integrity. The Liberal government is only addressing MP pensions to try to deflect public criticism. It knew Canadians wanted real changes so it made red book promises. However the promises were minimal and the government is doing the absolute minimum to barely meet those promises.

What were the promises? They were to end double dipping and to change the minimum age for collecting an MP pension, two of the many things that have outraged Canadians. The bill includes provisions to change those two things, which I commend, but the plan needs a major overhaul. This is just a start.

When questioned about the continuing generosity of the MP pension plan most Liberals throw up smoke screens and whine about how underpaid politicians are. They do not understand that the salaries of working MPs are unrelated to how much retired MPs should be making.

Over the past decade whenever the public has called for MP accountability and questioned the unsustainable and bloated pension package, the government has protected the plan and met the criticism by freezing MP salaries in major PR campaigns. It seemed to work before but not any more. Canadians are looking at the pension plans. Let us stick with the issue and not talk about low MPs salaries to defend high MP pensions.

Today the Liberals are pointing to studies that say MPs are underpaid while they are working. They respond by retaining this overinflated pension plan. Next year or the year after they will point to the same studies and say: "Gosh, look, we are underpaid. The studies prove it". They will pull out the sob stories and gain public support for salary increases. Just as they have refused to discuss the real issues on MP pensions now, they will refuse to discuss the MP pension plan then. That is because it is indefensible.

The government members go to great lengths to talk about anything but why they should be entitled to a two-tier pension plan. However some members of the government do not deny that the plan is generous. Just last Friday the hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader admitted:

The pension plan was generous. It is generous, and remains generous. However, the members of Parliament who entered the lists for the election in 1988 and in all previous elections did so on the basis that at the end of their term of office they would be compensated in some way that was generous but was designed to make up for the loss of income they suffered in being elected to Parliament in the first place.

He continued:

Most people enter a career looking at the remuneration package and seeing what it is like.

I think I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that Reformers did not switch careers and enter politics for the remuneration package. We came to Ottawa to represent our constituents and to make some long overdue changes. Altering the platinum plated MP pension plan is just one such change.

It saddens me to think that the main reason some of my hon. colleagues across the way entered politics was for the promised pension reward following their retirement from public service, and this is by their own admission. I would like to believe my colleagues opposite are honourable so I return to my first question. Is the Liberal government committed to making significant and necessary changes to the MP pension plan? Will those changes bring it into line with other Canadian pension plans?

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting today petitions on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River.

The first petition asks Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament. The petitioners feel the rights and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc is quite right: We have to depoliticize the whole process and get it back on sound technical grounds. That is what the opposition in unity is calling for.

On who should pay for the independent review, the two conflicting positions should equally pay for the independent review.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I feel the premise is that we just assume this $3,000 figure. I have not seen evidence to support it. That is fear mongering on the part of the auto industry to get its way with the government.

I have not seen the evidence that would support the $3,000. I used it because it was a threat that the automobile industry used to get its way with the government and the government bowed to that pressure.