Art Hanger

[Petitions, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition-

[Petitions, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 150 signatures.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to deport immediately all refugee and landed immigrants who commit and are convicted of a serious criminal offence in Canada, thereby protecting the Canadian people from these perpetrators.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 53 signatures that deals with pedophiles.

They request that sexual offenders be made public through a registry including their date of release and the community into which sexual offenders or pedophiles settle.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first six bear 376 signatures and deal with the following.

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

For anyone awaiting trial on the offences mentioned in the petition, the petitioners pray that such a person be held in 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.

[Justice, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's fresh start for justice has the Liberal Party's spin doctors scrambling for answers.

An access to information request clearly points to the Liberal failure to deal with hardened criminals who make a career out of hurting or killing innocent Canadians. The Liberal justice minister believes that capital punishment and truth in sentencing are "buzzwords" and are an act of revenge.

The Liberal idea of a safer society is to release violent offenders earlier because it is cheaper to do so, all under the name of rehabilitation. Liberals do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Neither do they believe that criminals are responsible for their actions. They say that you and I and society are to blame.

The bottom line is that the Liberal government continues to support criminals with its weak laws. On the other hand, innocent citizens are victimized and to the Liberal mind this is good.

The Liberal government is deluded. Fresh start for justice is the only answer to law and order in this country.

[Social Assistance For Failed Refugee Claimants, March 3rd, 1997]

And never will, as my colleague points out. The question has been asked numerous times.

In my travels to many of the points of entry in this country, I have determined there is a flow of refugee claimants, tens of thousands a year, coming into the country, and many are determined not to be true refugees.

Consider the border crossing at Fort Erie. In 1993 over 7,000 entered through that port and claimed refugee status. By law, according to the present situation at least, the department of immigration is obliged to give them oral hearings.

Of the 30,000 to 35,000 who claim refugee status every year, slightly under half are really accepted as refugee claimants. That leaves in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 who have been rejected as refugee claimants. We can read in the 1994-1995 estimates on immigration the cost that has been initiated by the department of immigration for hearing a claimant, a failed claimant, in our process through our court system once that individual has arrived here.

The figure from those estimates is between $30,000 and $50,000 per claimant. Of course, much of that cost is generated as a result of the state's having to support the claimant. Unfortunately many of the refugees do not speak the language and are not really expected to either. The provisions for refugee claimants will certainly be different than they would be for those who immigrate through normal channels. It is understood that many refugees will not have the skills, which I believe for the most part is acceptable to Canadians.

However, a failed claimant with an estimated cost of $30,000 to $50,000-I have heard that estimate as high as $100,000 per claimant-is a substantial burden to the taxpayer. Those claimants are supported at every turn by the present government. It is tax dollars that support them, although they are not legitimate claimants.

The reasons for this motion is to see that some form of communication be established with the provincial counterparts to curb this excessive cost and to take much swifter action for removal if the claimant is not legitimate.

On the issue of cost, there are 15,000 to 20,000 illegitimate claimants at a cost of between $30,000 and $50,000 per claimant. What does that add up to? We are talking about legal aid, welfare costs, support services right across the board, many of which are downloaded on to the provinces. There is a hit on the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.

The motion I have presented here speaks to that concern. It certainly speaks to the concern of a lot of Canadians who are aware of what is happening. However, many are not aware. It is incumbent on opposition to point these very glaring discrepancies out. Unfortunately the government across the way chooses to ignore much of the concerns expressed. It chooses to ignore what a lot of people have been telling it.

Why is it that the government refuses to deal with an issue that is so clear? From my experience thus far and from those people I have spoken to at this point I have come to one conclusion. The government is not listening to the concerns of the average person. It is listening to a very small group of special interests, many of whom are supported by and receive compensation from federal government grants. Lobbyists, advocates of all sorts, and consultants are seeking to keep the situation as is and for it not to be changed.

The public is growing weary of having to contend not only with the burden of cost but with some of the problems that have resulted because of poor screening processes of those people who are accepted as refugee applicants.

The list of concerns grows. It has become clear through several examples of refugee claimants-and I say claimants and not refugees themselves-being accepted in the country who were not given any status whatsoever and were involved in some very violent crimes. Many of those individuals have a tendency to be protected by the state in spite of the fact that they have been a burden on the state and should be removed immediately.

There have been clear violations of some individuals coming from overseas who have the means. They have the money or the wherewithal to end up in this country. They also have this very questionable chequered past. Mr. Abdirahman is one such individual who has been cited as having been involved in genocide in his own country. The list can be extended beyond what presently exists that may have hit the news. The recommendations and the policies set forth by the Liberal government encourage for some unknown reason selection of people like Mr. Abdirahman and those from questionable organizations in other countries of the world.

To my way of thinking and the thinking of a lot of Canadians these are not acceptable refugees. Certainly they are running from something else, but many of them should be tried in their own countries for some of the things they have done.

Let us get back to the point in question, the support level generated by both the federal and provincial governments because of federal legislation of those who have failed in their claim. When a claimant has failed in his application to be accepted as a refugee it is clear that the government should withdraw services. Why should legal aid continue to be pumped into the inexhaustive appeal process to follow? Why should the people of this country have to pay continually through their tax dollars for the support of such individuals?

It is obvious the average Canadian has not been heard in this debate at all.

When the matter was first raised in the House there was reaction from the other side, from some of the special interest groups and from the immigration bar association trying to squelch debate on the topic. The terms so often used were: "You are discriminatory. Those are racist comments". Is that what government and debate have resorted to, to squelch a legitimate issue? Those comments are wearing rather thin.

The Reform Party has put forward some proposals. In 1994-95 my office printed a document on a proactive approach to the protection of refugees in Canada. It is an alternative and it is important that we look at alternatives.

The Reform Party is suggesting the target number of persons accepted by Canada as convention refugees should stabilize at approximately 10 per cent of the total immigration intake.

We have talked about immigration levels. There has always been a history of fluctuation in the immigration levels in Canada, up until the last few years when it has been extremely high and there has been no adjustment or opportunity for the newcomers to integrate into Canada, into society and into the workforce. As a result other tensions have built up.

We are suggesting that it be 10 per cent of the total intake, in or around 15,000. The target of immigration levels would be 150,000 per year or thereabouts. The number of self-declared refugees arriving at our ports of entry would be sharply reduced if the word was clear out there in the immigration and refugee channels. It is known worldwide that Canada is a soft touch. All they have to do is land on our shores and declare they are refugees. Then they are entitled to all the support the Liberal government liberally generates in that direction.

With this restriction, and making it clear that the level of support on these appeals will not occur, the numbers will drop. The number of persons accepted as convention refugees through the inland determination process would be sharply reduced.

What will that do? It will open up slots for legitimate refugees. On the compassionate side of things that is what we should look at, not what we are experiencing here where legitimate refugees are being shut out because of a process that pays no heed to them. The inland process must be sharply curbed. With this form of communication to provincial governments since many on the provincial side are footing the bill in some respects although there are social transfer payments, it would be more of a legitimate concern expressed to the Canadian people and much more acceptable than what is happening at the present time.

To make sure the balance takes place it is our suggestion that the Government of Canada work in conjunction with the UN first to identify those who are legitimate. Second, it never hurts to have a watchdog over the process and encourage the UN representatives to examine our record of refugee determination.

There is a need for trade-offs. Looking at it from the compassionate side, Canada is doing an injustice to tens of thousands of genuine refugees overseas who are much easier to settle than those involved in the expensive inland determination process, many of whom are actually queue jumpers of the immigration line.

I encourage members across the way to give serious consideration to the motion. We are entering a time of substantial restraint This is one area that can be shored up and supported by the Liberal government.

[Social Assistance For Failed Refugee Claimants, March 3rd, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into discussions with provincial governments to limit the social assistance available to failed refugee claimants who are remaining in Canada to make appeals to the courts and transfer the onus of providing further assistance to these individuals to immigrant and refugee aid societies and other organizations.

Mr. Speaker, my motion, which calls on the government to reduce the financial burden of failed refugee claimants on Canada's social assistance network, is the result of considerable research and communication with a number of organizations and agencies in this country, in particular in the province of Ontario.

At the outset I wish to say that there is little question that Canadians willingly accept the responsibility of providing safe refugee accommodation to an internationally proportionate number of refugee seekers. In fact, Canadians welcome the opportunity to provide a new home to those who through no fault of their own are persecuted or displaced by political events and turmoil.

To be clear, Canadians do not want to stop accepting refugees. To be equally clear, that is not what this motion is about. What this motion is about is to recognize that failed refugee claimants can represent a tremendous burden to Canadian taxpayers. Consequently, the federal government should limit the opportunity for failed refugee claimants to receive welfare.

In the context of this debate let us define what criteria are used to determine an individual refugee.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees cares for and repatriates or resettles some five million refugees and displaced persons each year. A distinction must be made between a displaced person and a convention refugee.

A displaced person is one who, as the result of a natural disaster or political turmoil, has been rendered homeless and who is outside his or her own country. 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. Obviously not all displaced persons are convention refugees. Most can, at one time or another, be repatriated.

According to UN estimates there are approximately 20 million displaced persons or refugees in the world, but only approximately 60,000 of them are genuine convention refugees. This number is particularly important. In 1993, when I acted as the party's immigration critic, the immigration department claimed that Canada had accepted about 25,000 convention refugees. This position was maintained by the immigration department despite the fact that the UN said that only about 25,000 of those 60,000 convention refugees who were in need of immediate resettlement were resettled worldwide. In other words, there were something in the neighbourhood of 35,000 convention refugees who needed a new home who could not be placed anywhere. Yet our country, through our refugee determination process, took in somewhere around

35,000. If we took in 35,000 through our process, why were there still 35,000 genuine refugees not placed? That is the question that begs to be answered. Unfortunately I have received no answer to that dilemma from the Liberal government.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deserve a fair deal from this government. Under present law, RCMP personnel are unable to voice their concerns or grievances through a police association.

The Reform Party recognizes that RCMP officers should have the right to organize democratically and bargain collectively. This means that officers should be able to do so through voluntary membership in a police association. To those officers who want to bargain collectively, Reform applauds your efforts.

Reform also recognizes that the RCMP wants real freedom of association. To those officers who feel their concerns are best addressed individually, Reform supports your right to opt out of compulsory union membership. We support your right to work.

I say to the RCMP officers in the gallery, on the Hill here this week or out in the communities, your concerns are not falling on deaf ears.

Reform challenges the solicitor general to act now. Give RCMP officers a fair deal.

[Penitentiaries, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, people in this country are fed up with government inaction and government sponsored prisoners' rights. Now prison officials are talking about negotiating a settlement, if you will, with the prisoners at Millhaven.

The word of the day is compromise, not responsibility. Negotiations with inmates are absolutely foolhardy.

Why does the solicitor general support criminals and their demands for more rights and not victims' rights? Where is the responsibility?

[Penitentiaries, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I toured Millhaven penitentiary. To put it lightly, the place is a bloody mess. Prisoners have smashed water lines. They have strewn debris from range to range. They have demolished concrete walls. They have assaulted guards and prison staff by projecting feces and urine at them. This situation is now into its 17th day with total lock-down, riot squad on full stand-by; all the while these violent thugs are demanding better food and more recreation. They even get to watch cable TV in their lock-up.

When is the Solicitor General of Canada going to restore order and discipline by stripping the cells bare, providing only the basics and auctioning off the prisoners' TV and entertainment units to pay for the damage?