I am sure we are all proud of that. There are people in this House today who have experienced the privation and dangers to which claimants of refugee status testify they have been exposed. I am referring to persecution, sorrow and fear.
There are places in this world where the mere fact of saying what you think can land you directly in prison, without due process, or even worse.
There are places where the colour of a person's skin or the ethnic origin of his parents may sign his death warrant. Today we live in an age where the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide have unfortunately become part of our vocabulary.
Every day, regional conflicts and political and social confrontations continue to force whole communities to flee their country. The challenges created on a world scale by the increase in massive migrations are still with us, and there will be further challenges.
I am proud to say that in Canada we have chosen to confront these issues head on. It has long been recognized both here and abroad that Canadians care and take their responsibilities as good citizens of the world very seriously. That is why we accept the international obligations we took on when we signed the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol.
By signing those agreements we promised to protect those in need, to open our arms and hearts to victims of oppression and misery. A key element of our strategy to deal with the refugees was the creation of the immigration refugee board in 1989.
The IRB on behalf of Canadians reflects our commitment to promote a peaceful and humanitarian response to global issues of conflict, mass migration and human rights violations. The board's goals and challenges have remained constant: to identify those in need of Canada's protection and to adjudicate fairly and efficiently all immigration appeals, inquiries and detention reviews. I am happy to say that over the last six years the IRB has been up to the challenge it has has undertaken.
Yes, there have been problems. There have been times when the judgment of the IRB has been questioned. There have been times when the integrity of the system has been placed in doubt. But does that mean we should scrap the whole thing and start again with
something new and untested? No. That is the key word these days. No.
This type of haphazard tearing down is inefficient and uncalled for. It is also typical of the style of argument which members opposite advocate. They are always trying to tear down but are never willing to build up. This kind of negativity does not accomplish anything. Instead of saying there are some things we do not like so let us destroy it, why not say there are some very good things about the system, now let us make it better.
Since coming to Ottawa the Reform Party has tried to discredit an immigration program which has made Canada what is it today. They have made a practice of fearmongering and creating the impression that immigrants and refugees come to this country to take advantage of our social programs and wreak havoc on our justice system.
I wish to state for the record that these accusations and insinuations are an insult to the immigrants that have built this country, including myself. Canada's refugee determination system is renowned the world over. Countries ask for our advice based on our experience and leadership in the refugee determination system. However, I suppose the hon. members are not looking at that at all. The hon. member prefers to focus on the sensationalist cases that hit the front pages of the newspapers and serve to justify his reasons for dismantling the IRB.
The government believes in upholding the institutions that distinguish Canada from other countries and we will continue to do just that.
There were excellent reasons to justify the existence of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the charter of rights and freedoms guarantees refugee claimants the right to a hearing. Consequently, we need an authority that is in a position to hear claims for refugee status in a manner that is fair and balanced.
When it was proposed to create this authority several years ago, Parliament opted for setting up a tribunal that would operate at arm's length from the government. The aim was to put in place a professional body that would not be influenced by political or ideological considerations.
To guarantee the objectivity and impartiality of the hearing process, it is necessary to have a tribunal that is impervious to political partisanship.
Furthermore, appointees to the board must be professionals with the requisite training to grasp all the nuances and particular circumstances that are a factor in refugee cases. We have already said that determining refugee status is one of the most difficult forms of arbitration. This is a task that is emotionally extremely demanding and which requires an overriding concern for justice and fairness on the part of the appointee.
IRB commissioners are selected on the basis of the qualifications they will need to carry out this important and often demanding task. Each commissioner brings to his or her job a different perspective and a special knowledge of the international community.
In the past, the process for appointing commissioners has raised a number of concerns. Aware of this, the government has decided to form an independent advisory committee that will check the qualifications of all aspiring commissioners.
Mr. Gordon Fairweather will chair this advisory committee, whose members are to ensure that only qualified candidates are presented to the government. Furthermore, committee members will have to ensure that they strike a balance between the objective criteria of the commission and increasingly strong public pressures for increased political responsibility.
Another recent event which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced on March 1 this year was the decision to drop one of the two commissioners at hearings for refugee status.
The reduction in the number of employees at the Refugee Status Section, from 175 to 112, will represent an annual savings of $5.7 million. The money saved will be used to assist refugees.
These are only a few examples of our government's commitment to improving a system that has already produced good results. Unlike our critics, we believe that past successes should be considered when seeking solutions to today's problems, instead of complaining and taking drastic measures.
In order to maintain its relevance and efficiency, the board continually assesses its performance and examines ways to improve. The IRB has willingly undertaken an ongoing process of critical self-examination of policies, practices and procedures.
Contrary to what the hon. member would like us to believe, the IRB is an accountable organization and strives to improve its operations in order to meet its goals. In recent years the board has concentrated on developing and identifying best practices.
An example of the best practices is the adjudication division's use of video conferencing in certain cases. Another example of this positive development was the introduction of guidelines to examine claims from women refugees fearing gender related persecution. Canada was the first country in the world to undertake such
an initiative. This reinforces our image as a world leader in upholding the rights of women.
We have a system which is continually evolving and developing. It is a system which builds on its successes and learns from its mistakes. It is a system which will continue to serve the interests of Canadians and Canada both now and in the years to come. For all those reasons, I cannot support the hon. member's motion.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone listening to us tonight and all hon. members a merry Christmas and a happy new year.