Art Hanger

[Petitions, April 16th, 1996]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, bears 176 signatures.

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

[Petitions, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, the first bearing 126 names.

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.

[Foreign Aid Restriction Act, April 16th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an act respecting restriction on foreign aid.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced in the last session. It was designed to stop the flow of financial or other aid to any foreign country that refuses to accept re-entry of its nationals or former nationals deported from Canada.

Far too often when foreign born criminals are ordered deported from Canada, deportation is hampered because some countries do not want to take back their nationals.

The foreign aid restriction act addresses this issue by freezing aid to countries that frustrate the Canadian deportation process. This bill is a strong measure to ensure an effective deportation policy in Canada. If a country will not take back its citizens who have committed criminal acts in Canada or who have misrepresented their past involvement in organized criminal activity, terrorism or other activities as noted under section 19 of the Immigration Act and are ordered deported, the bill would then direct the Department of Foreign Affairs to suspend all foreign aid to that country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Correctional System, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that sex between inmates is explicitly prohibited in Canada's prisons, the federal government spent more than $180,000 last year on condoms.

Now we have learned that there is a plan to distribute dental dams, lubricants and bleach kits for cleansing drug needles to prisoners, all courtesy of the taxpayer.

The government has given new meaning to prisoners' rights with its plans to subsidize inmate sex with free condoms and drug use through the distribution of bleach kits.

When will this insanity end? Canadians want common sense restored to the Canadian correctional system. The government should immediately end condom and bleach kit distribution. I urge the government to divert its resources to the rehabilitation of victims, not the deviant habits of prisoners.

[Sentencing, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to truth in sentencing of criminals? In Canada unfortunately the most obvious truth about prison sentences is that they are a fiction.

For instance, section 745 allows criminals sentenced to life imprisonment the eligibility for release only 15 years into their sentence. It is a sure bet for criminals because 78 per cent of those who apply for parole under section 745 are granted early release. Using section 745, child killer Clifford Olson can apply for parole in August this year.

I speak on behalf of a growing majority of Canadians who believe that early release should only be considered for truly first time non-violent offenders. Canadians are telling justice officials to bring back the principles of truth in sentencing. You do the crime, you do the time.

Clearly section 745 must be repealed. On behalf of Canadians, I urge the justice minister to do so without delay.

[Clifford Olson, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how then is Clifford Olson paying for his law courses? That is the question. It is still on the backs of the taxpayers.

When Olson is not studying law he is making videotapes about his crimes and his victims' families are outraged about it. How much did the Correctional Service Canada pay to produce the 12 tapes? Who gave Olson permission to copyright the tapes? Who decided to make the tapes in the first place?

[Clifford Olson, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.

The solicitor general's parliamentary secretary told the House yesterday that he is not aware of any student loan funding granted to child killer Clifford Olson. On the other hand, Clifford Olson brags about the law courses he is taking.

Either Clifford Olson is receiving student loan funding or he is not. Which is it, yes or no?

[Clifford Olson, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the families of those victims that were murdered want to know what is going to be done about it, not a bunch of Liberal rhetoric.

Corrections officials said that some dangerous repeat offenders like Olson receive either educational grants from Correctional Service of Canada or student loan funding or both so that they may take university education. Will the solicitor general deny that this killer, Clifford Olson, is receiving a student loan to further his university education?

[Clifford Olson, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

Correctional Service of Canada has assisted Clifford Olson in producing a series of videotapes about his sadistic crimes. Now we are informed that Clifford Olson has received a copyright for these tapes. Given the fact that five of these tapes are in the hands of Robert Shantz, Olson's lawyer, there is the potential they may fall into the hands of the media, or even worse, into the hands of the commercial distributors.

Can the minister tell us why copies of the tapes were given to Mr. Shantz and what the solicitor general will do to retrieve them?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, December 14th, 1995]

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.