Debates of Dec. 14th, 1995

Finance

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like to rise to present a bill from the Senate. I believe there is unanimous consent to allow me to present this. If I may, I will continue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Evangelical Missionary Church

[Val Meredith, Reform, for Mrs. Ablonczy]

moved that Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate the Alberta corporation known as the Missionary Church with the Canada corporation known as the Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.

Madam Speaker, I rise on this occasion on behalf of my hon. colleague from Calgary North.

The Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District is a federal corporation incorporated in 1928 under a private act of the Parliament of Canada.

The Missionary Church is an Alberta corporation incorporated in 1927 by the Government of Alberta.

The purpose of the bill is to merge the two churches into one corporation under the name Evangelical Missionary Church, Canada West District. This merger would amalgamate the two churches as one corporation under the laws of Canada and would set out the power, status and administrative terms of reference of the new corporation. A de facto amalgamation has already taken place and the church is now functioning under the name of the federally incorporated church as provided for in the bill.

The merger of the two corporations would result in both groups combining the resources of the ministries to better meet mutual goals. It would have a positive impact on the members of the churches involved as well as the larger public in which they serve and minister. With this background information I believe the bill can be dealt with expeditiously to permit the amalgamation to go forward immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in and, by unanimous consent, read the third time and passed.)

Bill C-101

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a point of order.

I understand that some members of the opposition wish to file amendments to Bill C-101.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1), if this bill is the first order of the day when we return on February 5, it is now too late to move amendments. I can, however, tell the House that the government that we has no objections to receiving amendments now that would be deemed to have been received yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 76(1).

I think, Madam Speaker, that you will find that this suggestion has the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Immigration and Refugee Board should be dismantled and its functions subsumed into the Department of Citizenship and Immigration where refugee claims would be heard and decided by well trained and accountable immigration officers.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to address private members' motion No. 389, calling for the dismantling of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which I will refer to as the IRB.

This motion is my response to more than two years of inaction on the part of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, two years where he has skirted issues, avoided questions and refused to take responsibility for the inadequacies which exist within his portfolio. He has brought forward legislation which has juggled the status quo and made minuscule changes. However, he has not addressed the legitimate concerns of Canadians who want the system fixed.

It must be hard for old style political parties and old style ministers to see past the trough of political patronage and grasp the concept of popular opinion. Since the time of Confederation the political machine in Canada has been rife with corruption and a harbour of patronage. The latest Liberal instalment is yet another chapter in this patronage book. Many initiatives are undertaken to accommodate campaign contributors regardless of the cost of public funds or public safety. This minister is out of touch with the average Canadian so I want to take this opportunity to tell him about them.

Canadians are remarkable people. Our selfless commitment to helping those less fortunate has gained us the admiration of the world. Canadians want to provide a safe refuge for those who through no fault of their own are in legitimate danger of persecution. This is our home and we are happy to share it with those in need. However, this hospitality has its limits.

No one likes being taken advantage of and that is exactly what is occurring today. Many of those who have come to our land seeking asylum are fugitives, some are war criminals and others have not been straightforward in disclosing their present situation. Our current system does not allow for a thorough scrutiny resulting in a heightened risk to Canadians.

We did not arrive at this situation overnight. There has been a long stream of inept decision making which has brought our humanitarian efforts to the disastrous state that exists today. Contrary to the routine embellishments of the immigration minister, there is plenty that can be done to rectify the situation. It involves some creativity, hard work and may upset some of those who have been getting fat off the overburdened taxpayer. This criteria alone would cause the minister to run away in fear. Yet we

with the Reform backbone are willing to make the changes in the interests of Canadians.

Let us look at the function and make-up of the IRB. The IRB was created in response to the Supreme Court of Canada 1985 ruling in the case of Singh v. the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The supreme court had ruled in Singh that all refugee claimants were to be granted oral hearings in accordance with standards of fundamental justice and that the prior practice violated those standards. This board was also empowered to hear the appeals of those who had been ordered removed from Canada.

These terms of reference were honourable at the time. In theory, the IRB would be a determining body able to sort out those seeking asylum under the United Nations definition of convention refugees from those simply seeking entrance to Canada. From this point on the trouble starts.

Let me start by addressing the make-up of the board. The IRB which is comprised of approximately 235 amply remunerated appointees is both larger and better paid than is appropriate. This body incurs an operating cost of almost $80 million a year, not including the cost of legal aid and social services which result from its decisions. By dismantling the IRB and subsuming this function into the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the system would become more accountable, more cost effective, more ethical and would fulfil our humanitarian obligations.

Like all other appointed quasi-judicial bodies, the IRB is autonomous in its decision making practices. The minister of immigration has stated that his only means of recourse for incompetent members is not to renew their appointment. This is not an acceptable form of recall. This process could take as long as five years and falls outside the mandate of an elected government. Those making decisions on behalf of Canadians should be directly accountable for their actions.

Without the direction of the House of Commons, the IRB is pursuing its own mandate regardless of the wants and needs of Canadians. Many of those who land in Canada as refugees should have been considered as immigrants; others should have been denied entry altogether. We as Canadians have an obligation to accommodate only those who qualify as convention refugees under the definition outlined by the United Nations.

The United Nations definition of a convention refugee is one who, because of membership in a particular political or social group, religion, race or nationality cannot return to his or her home country for fear of serious persecution. The UN estimates that as of 1993 there are 20 million displaced persons in the world. Of these, only 60,000 are genuine convention refugees. The UN reports that 25,000 of the 60,000 who were in need of immediate resettlement were settled worldwide. Thirty-five thousand were not settled.

Canada accepted 25,000 refugee claimants in 1993. That number is the same in 1994 and it will even be higher in 1995. Therefore, either we settle every single refugee in the world, or the formula for determining status in Canada is flawed. I believe it is the latter.

We have a clear definition laid down by the UN. Unfortunately, the IRB interpretation of that definition has created considerable uncertainty regarding the determination of refugee status. The average acceptance rate for the industrialized countries has traditionally hovered at about 14 per cent. Canada's acceptance rate is presently hovering between 70 per cent to 90 per cent. Clearly the definition of refugee has undergone a radical expansion in Canada.

Some may argue the merits of having such a high approval rate. However the ramifications of these practices is far reaching and not as noble as one may think. I will address this issue later in my speech.

The IRB has redefined its mandate and practices outside of that in its inception and that of any other practice exercised by signatories of the UN convention. There must be a clear formula for refugee determination. It must be followed in all cases.

Unless a nation has proven itself to be a systematic violator of the terms of the UN treaty, then that nation should be considered a safe third country for the purposes of refugee determination. Right now with this minister of immigration we are accepting refugees from the United States, from England, from Germany and even from Israel. It is absolute absurdity. Yet that is what is happening in this country.

Currently the majority of cases heard by the IRB involve inland claimants. Those are people who enter Canada and seek refugee status. Many of these people have paid their way to Canada and only seek refugee status because of Canada's liberal practices. Canada operates under the legal fiction that there are no safe third countries. As such, virtually all migrants regardless of their previous country of residence are granted refugee hearings upon request.

I believe that it is entirely appropriate and does not contravene the Singh decision to deny claimants refugee hearings who come from safe third countries. This is in accordance with the definition of the UN. This opinion is shared by Canadians but not by the IRB.

The practices of the IRB have caused two streams of immigration into Canada: those who qualify as immigrants and those who slip through as refugees. There are two losers in this scenario: the legitimate refugee who is not granted access to Canada and the

taxpayer who is forced to support huge bills which result from appeals, legal aid and social assistance.

These claimants who do not have a legitimate claim to seek asylum in Canada carry a huge price tag. The average cost to the taxpayer per claimant in terms of legal aid, court time and social assistance is between $30,000 and $60,000. Multiplied by the 25,000 refugees accepted annually, and as I pointed out it could be as high as 32,000 this year, the bill is well over $1 billion.

That amount comes close to matching the total budget of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. With that budget the UNHCR manages to care for, settle and repatriate five million displaced persons a year. In other words, Canada spends the same amount of money on a few thousand cases as the UN does on five million. There is definitely a problem here.

The primary goal of Canada's refugee system is to provide humanitarian relief. Therefore a reduced emphasis on inland processing is needed in order to focus a greater reliance on overseas selection. Overseas claimants are confined to refugee camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed soldiers. These people have been denied the most basic of human needs and yet their plight is forsaken by those who abuse the Canadian refugee system.

In addition to the humanitarian gains inherent in this approach, the cost to the taxpayer would be substantially reduced. Contrary to the exorbitant costs attributed to inland claimants, the cost of resettling overseas claimants averages between $2,500 and $3,000 per claimant. This is fair. It is ethical. It is what the IRB was established to do: help those most in need. But the IRB is not doing that.

One may ask: Why dismantle the IRB? Why not just change their mandate? It is not that simple. The IRB is a hotbed for political patronage appointments. Merit is not always a factor, nor is it a motive. The IRB is unresponsive to the interests of Canadians and has become a representative of special interests from the immigration industry, perpetuating a system which drains public moneys for its own gain.

The Liberal government, specifically the immigration minister and the parliamentary secretary have been supporting that patronage system and certainly support the drain. The more the merrier as long as the taxpayer is paying. This is accomplished by broadening the definition of refugee beyond either what the people of Canada or the United Nations for that matter have ever proposed.

In many instances the IRB members have been confused about the terms "persecution" and "prosecution" by allowing fugitives, terrorists, outlaws and political dissidents into Canada under the guise of refugees. Some of these undesirables are believed to channel Canadian social assistance funds back to political regimes which perpetuate violence, genocide and drugs, not the elements which tug at the heart strings of generous Canadians.

Under current guidelines, refugee hearings conducted by the IRB are to be non-confrontational. In other words, board members and staff must take pains to avoid engaging in questioning, introducing evidence or employing a tone that would suggest to the claimant that the onus of providing proof of legitimacy lies with them.

It is a privilege to be granted access to the best country in the world. There needs to be a system of determining refugee status which is thorough, efficient, cost effective and fair. The IRB is not. Hence the fact is that it must be dismantled.

Madam Speaker, you may ask what will serve in its place. I am glad you asked that because no responsible piece of legislation should ever be presented unless it is well researched and includes a plan of implementation. I appreciate being asked that question. I assure you that this motion includes both. I am proposing that the IRB be entirely dismantled and replaced by a body of well trained immigration officers who have the ability individually to determine refugee claims. These officers would receive intensive training in refugee acceptance guidelines.

This measure would establish government policies and procedures which would need to be followed in each and every case. The performance of these officers would be scrutinized and regularly reviewed by departmental officials under the jurisdiction of the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, thereby implementing the element of accountability which has been absent from the present model.

Some may argue that replacing the IRB with a body of trained immigration officials directly accountable to the deputy minister will lead to political intervention in the determination process. Let me concede that this could be a valid argument. However, Reform proposes that members of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would monitor refugee acceptance guidelines in Canada and would act as a check and balance in the process.

As I mentioned before, our mandate to accept and resettle convention refugees is obligatory as a signatory to the treaty. The UNHCR would be able to inform the minister and Canadians about questionable trends in refugee processing. This intervention would end the pandering of the immigration industry interests which is so prevalent thus far. Immigration officers would be empowered to investigate and question the legitimacy of all claimants in the interests of Canadians.

The decision of verifying and accepting a claim would be rendered by individual hearing officers rather than by an IRB

board member. This method of intervention would ensure a full disclosure of information, including that which is incriminating.

Why should we provide asylum for those who have committed crimes in other lands? There are far too many needy claimants in the world to take risks on those with chequered pasts. By empowering the immigration officials with fact finding abilities, there is a greater chance of weeding out those who are not deserving of asylum here in Canada.

Let me take a moment to recap. The IRB is ineffective in determining refugee claimants as described in the United Nations definition of a convention refugee. The IRB has a history of catering to the immigration industry, lining the pockets of immigration lawyers, advocacy groups and organizations with taxpayer dollars.

The IRB has broadened the Canadian definition of a refugee to the point that anyone entering Canada has a nine out of ten shot at being a refugee. Of those who reach Canada, only 1 per cent are ever deported. This is a joke. It undermines the immigration and refugee system in the eyes of Canadians. The IRB has routinely cost the Canadian taxpayer $80 million a year. This is a disgusting display of partisan patronage and it must stop now.

One would think that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would embrace a plan such as this. It would restore integrity accountability to a portfolio which is severely lacking. It would demonstrate to the Canadian public that he cares about its situation and is responsible with its hard earned tax dollars.

It would portray him as a minister concerned with the safety of Canadians and dedicated to Canada's humanitarian obligations. There is only one problem. He would have to fire all his friends. That is a serious obstacle for the minister and indeed the entire Liberal Party.

The only jobs, jobs, jobs they care about are the patronage jobs. We on this side of the House see things a whole lot differently. We want to make the immigration system effective, accountable and ethical. We want governments to implement programs which serve Canadians without the added expense of patronage jobs. We want the refugee determination process to be conducted by well trained, non-partisan immigration officials.

This is not a Christmas wish list. It is the bare minimum to be expected from a responsible government. Our refugee determination plan would result in the following. The number of persons accepted as convention refugees through the inland determination process would be sharply reduced. The number of self-declared refugees arriving at our ports of entry would be sharply reduced.

The Government of Canada would work closely with the UN to identify and bring to Canada substantial numbers of convention refugees from around the world who are in most need of immediately resettlement. These refugees would be determined by overseas Canadian officers and would undergo medical and criminal checks before being transported to Canada.

This system would restore the ethical characteristics which are part and parcel of the humanitarian efforts. Bureaucrats and their friends would no longer profit from policies meant to aid the politically oppressed.

I am bringing forth a motion which is in the best interests of Canadians by implementing a more effective system of refugee determination without the pomp and circumstance of bloated patronage appointments and pandering to special interest demands.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to listen to their constituents, to use common sense and support this motion.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great delight to take part in the debate.

To the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, it appears from his comments he is almost as familiar with his material as he is with the facts. It warms me greatly to think of all those briefing sessions I attended with the hon. member in which clearly he did not get it.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and do something. It is always good when one gets to do the job one was born for. It is a delight for me to stand in the House today and attempt to cast a little light into the darkness that is the Reform Party policy in the whole area of immigration, in particular with regard to refugees and the Immigration and Refugee Board.

With regard to the board, it interests me that the hon. member and all in his party who can get their heads around the immigration question seem to think everything is supposed to be perfect. Never on this side do we claim it is perfect. We do, however, claim it is a very good system and it works well.

I am not sure, and I would never attempt to get into the so-called minds of my colleagues on the other side, what their actual thoughts are with regard to this.

[An hon. member]

That is insulting

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Someone said that is insulting. It was intended to be. I am glad the member grasped the intent as it was thrown across the floor.

That the IRB is not perfect does not mean we should close the doors and begin experimenting with alternative and very expensive forms of status determination. We do not throw out something without dealing with it. That is what we are doing. We are dealing with it and we are dealing with it well.

Since it was created in 1989, the board has evolved and grown to meet the changing needs of the times. Evolution and growth to meet changing needs of times I realize are things our hon. friends in the third party have a little difficulty with.

The challenge has been to maintain objectivity and efficiency in the system in the face of changing world conditions. We have made a lot of progress and we continue to do so.

Before I talk about what the government has done it might be best to remind my hon. colleague why we have an IRB in the first place. It was not an arbitrary invention. It evolved in response to some very concrete and important needs and concerns. This may come as an overwhelming flash to some of my friends in the House, but evolving in response to concrete needs and concerns is all in the process of good government.

First and foremost there were serious charter concerns raised about how we previously ran our refugee determination system. The charter of rights and freedoms provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This is where we get serious, because those are magnificent words. They are words I am very proud of in the Canadian context.

In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that refugee claimants are entitled to a hearing on the merits of their claim in accordance with the charter right to fundamental justice. The court pointed out in the Singh case that claimants had a right to an oral hearing before a decision maker where questions of credibility were at stake.

The opportunity to be heard is only one element of fundamental justice. Another is the importance of ensuring the decision maker is both unbiased and impartial; called rights of natural justice.

[An hon. member]

And Liberal.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Perhaps the word Liberal might rub off on the member yelling it, although I doubt it. To be Liberal is to be honourable and to care and to be open minded.

While the government has no interest in denying protection to those who need it, there is a requirement for justice to be done and for justice to be seen to be done. This means the possibility that decision makers are seen as simply doing the will of the government of the day must be avoided. That is why the creation of an independent body was seen to be so important. It reinforces both the reality and the perception of impartiality.

There is another compelling reason for having an independent body devoted to refugee determination status. This work calls for particular skills, for particular expertise. It requires a knowledge and understanding of refugee issues.

[An hon. member]

Which they do not have.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

The hon. member, is yelling "which they do not have". I am thinking of some of the members of the IRB whom I have come in contact with at consultations and at meetings and whom I have seen both in my years as a member of Parliament and before. I am thinking of the expertise, the knowledge and the hard work. I am thinking of some of their constituents and of people across the country who work hard. It is really unfortunate that duly elected members of Parliament will say the kinds of things this crew is saying about very good members of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I say shame.

Departmental officials could be trained to do the job but current members are specifically selected because they already have the qualities the job calls for. By having an independent body we can specifically recruit the best people for the job.

I presented the reasons for having an Immigration and Refugee Board but now I would like to turn to recent changes we have made in the refugee system. My early assertion that we are fixing the system is no idle boast. Canada does not turn her back on those in need. That is a tradition we are proud of, a tradition the government is working to preserve.

We are not alone. The world forces of migration affect all countries. It is unfortunate again that the hon. members opposite do not take the opportunity from time to time to travel as members of Parliament, as representatives of Canada, and see why the United Nations has called this the greatest country in the world and to see what can only be described as a horror in certain parts of the world.

If they take that opportunity, as I hope they will in the limited time they have here, they will understand why we are so justly proud in Canada of our immigration and refugee programs.

The forces of world migration affect all countries. European nations are confronted with the same challenges we face. That is why the government is working hand in hand with foreign governments to find ways to address the root causes of migration.

International groups like the international organization on migration are an important vehicle for co-operation and for positive change. However, if we are to continue to be a welcoming country, and we will, a haven in a dark and oppressive world, we need a system that is efficient, fair and affordable.

Over the past few years we have heard concerns over the methods of appointment to the board and to some extent over the quality and consistency of decisions. We also realize the in Canada refugee determination system has to be streamlined to keep pace

with world developments. It is with this in mind that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration reviewed its policies over the last year and the minister introduced important changes.

Planned changes to the Immigration Act reduced the number of people on refugee hearing panels from two to one. The annual savings from this measure alone will be $5.7 million. This money will be targeted for the selection and settlement of refugees from abroad, and that is a good thing which I am proud of.

The minister announced the creation of an advisory committee to assist in the selection of all IRB members. This advisory committee will be chaired by Gordon Fairweather, a man whose name rings with integrity in this country.

These are only a few of the things we have done to change and improve the IRB. In Canada we are proud that we are generous. We are proud we have a full and fair refugee and immigration system.

I would like to say to you, Madam Speaker, to the members of the IRB and, in the spirit of generosity and the season, even to that lovely clack on the other side, and also to my good friend the hon. member for Bourassa, Merry Christmas.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion M-389, tabled by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast and proposing the dismantling of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Reform Party member is proposing that the IRB be dismantled and that refugee claims be heard and decided by immigration officers.

Thus, the refugee determination process would become the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The IRB was established on January 1, 1989, following a 1985 Supreme Court ruling in the Singh matter. The highest court in the country then ruled that all refugee claimants had the right to an impartial hearing according to the principles of natural justice. In other words, a purely administrative hearing process for refugee claimants was found to have violated the standards of natural justice and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In becoming a signatory to the Geneva Convention on refugees, Canada pledged to protect people in distress and not send them back to a country where their lives or their freedom would be in danger. As regards refugees, the Immigration Act recognizes the need to fulfil Canada's legal obligations on the international scene, and to maintain our traditional humanitarian attitude towards displaced and persecuted persons.

Contrary to what happens in the case of immigrants, when Canada rules that a claimant is indeed a refugee, it does not grant a privilege: it recognizes a right. The refugee determination process must remain separate from the immigration policy. The decision to grant refugee status or to refuse it must be taken by an independent body. The process must be objective and non political. The asylum seeker has the right to be judged by a fair and impartial tribunal.

The rules of natural justice stipulate that those who make the decision must be neutral and impartial. The principle of equity must also be applied. I believe the IRB meets that requirement. However, I have strong criticisms to make regarding this administrative tribunal. I will mention two.

On numerous occasions, the IRB was accused, rightly so, of being a haven for patronage appointments. I myself asked questions in the House regarding that problem. At the request of the Bloc Quebecois, the Standing committee on Citizenship and Immigration reviewed the appointment of several board members. We have found that the Liberal Government mimics almost exactly the patronage style of the Conservatives they criticized at the time. This erodes the credibility of the IRB still further.

The other serious problem within the board relates to the length of time it takes for a case to be heard. The process ought to be a rapid one, but I recently visited the Montreal IRB where people have to wait more than six months until their hearing. Last September, in Quebec, close to 11,000 claimants were waiting for their IRB hearing, nearly half of the total 23,000 claimants in all of Canada, not to mention that this past October alone, another 1,200 new claimants were added to that figure in Quebec.

This problem must be solved. The turnaround time must be shortened, and must include a proper hearing and the possibility of a review. The flaw in the present system lies precisely with the appeal process, or rather the lack of it.

In Quebec there are currently some 16,000 refugee claimants. The total figure is decreasing in Canada, but has risen 40 per cent in Quebec. Quebec has no jurisdiction over refugee matters; it is the federal authorities who control entry and the refugee determination process. It generally takes between 18 and 24 months, although sometimes it may drag on for several years-far too long.

The Canada-Quebec agreement calls for the transfer of federal funds to the province for immigrants and permanent residents. As long as refugee claimants have not been accepted, Quebec foots the bill.

I might add that some 15 per cent of recognized refugees cannot get permanent resident status because they cannot afford the $975

immigration fee required for each application, or because they cannot obtain official identity papers from their country of origin. In the meantime, they receive help from Quebec Social Services.

The cost of the various public services provided to refugee claimants by the Government of Quebec is over $200 million just for this current year.

I believe that Ottawa ought to reimburse that amount to Quebec, indeed all costs relating to those seeking asylum, since it is the federal government that controls this process. This is a necessary measure if Quebec is to continue its humanitarian tradition of welcoming refugees.

I add that, in the medium and long term, immigrants and refugees contribute much more than they receive at the start.

I would like to say a few words about the draft agreement on asylum seekers initialled November 27, 1995 by representatives of the American and Canadian governments. The document is causing a lot of controversy among NGOs involved with refugees. It fails to properly protect the rights of those seeking asylum. The United States interprets the definition of refugee more narrowly than does Canada.

I have tabled a motion whereby the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration would hear witnesses and prepare a report on this agreement.

I therefore ask the Government of Canada to delay the final signing of this agreement, planned for February, to enable the committee to conclude its hearings. In any case, the agreement is not supposed to come into effect until the end of 1996.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes the abolition of the IRB. Despite its shortcomings, which we have criticized on a number of occasions, it has an important job to do in connection with the international obligations provided in the Geneva convention on refugees, of which Canada is a signatory. It is the highest administrative tribunal in the country deciding on applications for asylum in Canada.

For all these reasons, we will vote against Motion No. 389.

Finally, I would like to wish Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my colleagues in this House and to all members of staff.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the past 50 years, Canada has welcomed more than 200,000 refugees.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, are we not going in rotation?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are doing what the list dictates and it is government, opposition, government, opposition.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

When it is our motion? Is that correct?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Returning to debate. The hon. member for Saint-Denis.