Art Hanger

[Immigration, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are looking for assurances in this matter. On March 1 the IRB appeal division turned down Inthavong's appeal of his deportation order and declared his removal order valid in law, citing the importance of safety and good order of Canadian society. The individual can appeal even further.

Why does the minister not follow the law that gives him the obligation to remove people who, there are reasonable grounds to believe, will engage in acts of violence or are likely to participate in organized criminal activities?

Give the Canadian people the assurance that you will act when it falls on your desk-

[Immigration, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bonjan Inthavon, a Laotian gang member with a violent criminal history, has been released into the Fraser Valley area in B.C. This thug had been ordered deported. Since the minister's department unbelievably granted him convention refugee status, it is now left to the minister to follow his own legislation to protect Canadian citizens.

Will the minister show some leadership and act immediately under section 19 of the existing legislation to have this criminal removed from the country, as his own officials have already recommended?

[Immigration, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians read about a woman who came to Canada from the United States and then claimed refugee status. She was turned down and removed back to the U.S. until she could get a taxpayer funded legal aid assisted appeal.

The initial hearing stage took so long that the claimant now has a two and one-half year old daughter born in Canada who is a Canadian citizen. This child will have to remain in Canada while her mother is removed to the U.S.

The Reform Party would never have allowed this travesty to occur. We would not accept refugee claimants from the United States. We would not allow claims to go on and on for two and one-half years. We would not allow children born of illegal immigrants to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship.

The minister calls our proposals hard hearted. In fact, these measures would have prevented this latest immigration outrage and would have saved taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. If this government had the interests of genuine refugees and taxpayers at heart, it would adopt our proposals and stop a system that encourages abuse.

[Immigration And Refugee Board, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today with no notice to either the press or the opposition, the immigration minister announced that in the IRB, single members will replace panels, a treaty is under way with the U.S. to

stop refugee claimants at the border, and cost savings, if any, will go to overseas selection of refugees. That is amazing.

In our paper on refugee determination, we called for only one person to hear claims. We called for denying the hearings to those who had travelled through the U.S. We called for inland cost savings to go overseas. I am glad this minister read our paper. If he really wanted to reform the process then he would stand up to special interests, scrap the IRB and restore some real common sense and accountability to the system.

Today's announcement will not make the system more accountable. It does not guarantee that the world's highest refugee acceptance rate will go anywhere but up. It does not do what needs to be done. That is altogether typical of the immigration minister: lots of talk but no real reform.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Because you are not stating the reasons.

The immigration minister has had all sorts of opportunities to make changes to immigration that make sense and that are honest but he will not do it. He has had every opportunity to save the Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money through immigration reform. He did not do it. He would not. He does not have what it takes. If the minister wanted to save money for the taxpayer, he would have saved literally hundreds of millions of

dollars by taking some advice from the Reform Party on refugee determination in Canada.

A month ago, we released our proactive proposals for refugee determination. Those proposals, if enacted, would ensure that the refugee system was more fair to genuine refugees. That was our first goal. The proposal would have ensured that the system was more fair to the taxpayer by cutting back on legal aid and social services for people who had been refused as refugees and were appealing.

We proposed that the Immigration and Refugee Board, that $80 million a year hotbed of patronage, pork and foolish decision making be abolished. We proposed that a refugee determination system, which presently costs $1 billion or more a year to determine a handful of claims, be fundamentally restructured to reduce the number of bogus claims. Accept more genuine refugees from abroad. Doing so would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars, but the minister would not hear of it.

Here is a short list of some other costs the immigration minister has been afraid to deal with. The total cost of the department has gone up from $581 million to $592 million. Do you call that cost cutting? The corporate service budget has increased from $33 million to an unbelievable $78 million. Is that the minister's idea of government efficiency, to double the budget in one year?

The cost of failed sponsorship is $700 million. Welfare for refugees as estimated in the Vancouver Sun a few days ago is $600 million. Teaching English or French and other settlement services for new immigrants costs $450 million. Quebec's gold plated immigration settlement program costs $90 million. No adjustments are made there at all, one year after another.

On top of all that the justice department will spend an additional $11.6 million on immigration and refugee cases. The Federal Court will spend an additional $11.9 million on handling refugee cases. The RCMP will have to allocate an additional $2.3 million to clean up the messes made by lousy immigration policies. There is $60 million in legal aid.

Of course, there was last year's stupid expenditures: $2,000 for a pizza party hosted by the minister; $2,000 for bookmarks with the minister's photo on them; $100,000 for office furniture for one member in the IRB; another $100,000 for a golden handshake to get rid of that member.

In light of all of these numbers, the increased user fees are just a drop in the bucket. Until this government and this immigration minister come to terms with the fact that Canada's immigration and refugee programs are so lax, so broad, so inefficient and so ridiculously generous as to cost Canadians up to $3 billion a year to accept and settle refugees and immigrants, we are just wasting time.

The government is tilting at windmills. If this government really wants to fix the immigration budget it should not jack up fees before it gets on top of the real problem: Liberal immigration policy. That is the problem.

I say to the people of Canada, to the media, to interested observers of Canada's immigration system around the world, that before they congratulate the finance minister and the immigration minister for taking tough action to fix a tough problem, before this back slapping gets too intense, tell me what is wrong with this picture.

A refugee claimant has just been paid $1,000. Now he sits before an $85,000 a year patronage appointee. Each hour of hearing and preparation time is being run up as a profit by his legal aid attorney. His acceptance is virtually guaranteed since the IRB is little more than an $80 million a year rubber stamp. If he is sick, there are no worries, he has a health card.

In the extremely unlikely event that he is found not to be a refugee, there are no worries. He will just ring up a few more hours for his legal aid attorney, appeal to the taxpayer funded courts, get another hearing before another $85,000 a year IRB member. After this charade has been carried on for three years, the minister gives him an automatic amnesty. It is not a bad deal for $975. Most of us would not even get inside the courtroom door for $975. The refugee claimant and his lawyer can tie up our courts for three years.

This is no exaggeration. Members may not like the illustration. They do not like it because they know it is true. The most tragic aspect of that scenario is that all the time this charade is being played out at the taxpayers' expense, the UN tells us that the most genuine refugees from overseas are being systematically ignored by countries like Canada. Refugees we could process more easily and far more cheaply are being ignored. These are genuine refugees.

People may start realizing now how much of an opportunity there was in 1995 to really rethink government and make fundamental changes. They will realize what a golden opportunity there was to make things work better. Then they will wake up to what was not done and they will be sorely disappointed.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget. It is a budget that in the opinion of those who get past the initial media kowtowing, the interest group moaning and the Liberal back slapping, is dishonest. It is overrated. It is underachieving and hypocritical. It fails to attack the efficiency and the internal wastefulness of the federal government.

This budget deserves no praise. It lacks will. It lacks solutions. It is not an answer. It is only prolonging the inevitable demise of our social programs, our financial security and our way of life, including that of our children.

What the finance minister has done is altogether typically Liberal. He has made some token reductions which he thinks will placate voters. He has increased taxes in such a way that taxpayers will not know they are being hit hard. Furthermore, he has done some things that, had they been done by any other party with the Liberals in opposition, would have caused the Liberals to explode in outrage and violent criticism. That is the hypocrisy of this budget.

The Reform Party's taxpayers' budget laid out a series of reasonable, manageable cuts to transfers and established programs financing, cuts that would ensure long term health and the continuation of these programs. The Liberals assailed us, as the hon. member is doing right now. They accused us of being heartless, of being uncaring, of bashing the poor. What is the Liberal alternative to this imagined Reform Party heartlessness?

The Liberals will double the fees of refugee claimants. That is really something. That is without a doubt the most blatant hypocrisy I have ever seen from this government or that party. They have done nothing in any promise for the future.

Look at what is going on within the department of immigration. Look at those increased fees that are coming. For a moment, look at the increased fees and the recipients of those fees, the immigration department. If you take an honest look, you will come away with a very different impression about the seriousness of this government, the willingness of this government and the party across the aisle to make real change. You will come away with a very different impression of the will of that party and the intestinal fortitude of the finance minister and especially the immigration minister.

There are two reasons the finance minister together with the immigration minister have decided to increase fees. One is stated and the other is not.

The stated reason is to raise revenue to offset the cuts. In other words, they want to bring more money into the coffers. Charge a little more up front and recover more of the costs of processing and resettlement, as the minister points out. Fair enough. Why should those who apply for immigrant status not pay their way? We are not objecting to that.

There is no good reason for the taxpayer to subsidize the processing of immigrant applications. Remember that if any other party had done this, the Liberals would have fallen all over themselves moaning about taxing the poor, charging more to those who are unable to pay.

The other reason for almost doubling the fees, the unstated reason that observers from both sides of the immigration debate recognize, is to quietly cull a certain percentage of the applicants for immigration. Changing the immigrant mix is a good idea certainly. Both the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute agree with the Reform Party that we need to do that. However, doing it this way is cowardly and devious on the part of the Liberals.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in some of the comments by the member for Mississauga West. Certainly having been raised in a family in which the father was a police officer would give her some insight into the concerns police officers express when it comes to criminal activity. Seeing if nothing else the breakdown in our laws and the effectiveness of what a police officer can or cannot do any more is a story in itself.

I am also interested in the comments relating to the smuggled weapons and the use of illegal weapons, that the illegal gun market would literally dry up once we have a good registration system in place and some supposed criminal sections that would deal with that.

I do not believe the member has ever been over to the Fort Erie border crossing to look at the extent of what we have as security at the border crossing. There is a joke among the customs officers and the people who live in that area. If a boat comes across from the American side and it rides low in the water, it is full of alcohol. If it rides halfway down in the water, then it is full of guns. If it rides high in the water, then there are drugs in that particular boat. When it gets over to the other side to the Canadian shore there is no one there to stop it to see what really is in the boat because our border security is at a minimum.

Resources at the front line have been cut back to the nth degree. Police departments right across the country are suffering now because of a lack of being able to hire the adequate number of police officers to look at it.

How will the illegal gun market dry up through a registration system when the front line cannot even stop the smuggling problem in this country, which is way out of hand and our police departments do not even have a finger on it? Even if they did they could not do anything about it.

[Immigration, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, late Friday a press release was circulated which announced officially that the minister for immigration intended to sign a treaty with the United States that would allow Canada to share responsibilities for refugee claimants with the U.S.

I ask the minister of immigration, what exactly will the terms of this treaty be and why did he refuse to sign the treaty one year ago?

[Immigration, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the youngest minister eligible for the full, unreduced pension.

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the bill presented by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The bill which I strongly support has as its main purpose the establishment of a volunteer service medal for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have served in peacekeeping missions under United Nations command. In my view and that of many others this is a long overdue idea that deserves to be considered very seriously by the House and by the Canadian government.

As we all know Canada has been involved in UN sponsored operations since the 1940s. Canada has also been the most constant and faithful contributor of troops to peacekeeping missions. In return our involvement in areas like Lebanon, Cyprus, El Salvador and Cambodia has truly been a source of pride for all Canadians.

While we have taken pride in this heritage of service abroad, we have failed to adequately recognize the efforts and the courage of thousands of servicemen and women who have answered without question the call of the Canadian government whenever it has sounded.

Under present guidelines Canadian peacekeepers do not receive a distinctively Canadian medal. Ever since 1949, the year of the first UN sponsored military observation mission in India-Pakistan, Canadian service men and women have not been formally honoured by the Government of Canada by the awarding of a Canadian medal. The medals awarded to date have been issued by the United Nations thereby making them foreign awards. This oversight, which hopefully cannot be interpreted as a lack of gratitude, must be remedied.

In the words of a former peacekeeper, now a member of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, the adoption of Bill C-258 is "an opportunity to help right the wrong". Canada's reputation as a country concerned with peace around the world is in large part attributed to the professional ability and courage of past and present peacekeepers. The role that Canadians have taken in UN peacekeeping is recognized throughout the world. It is now time for the Canadian government to do the same.

Today I will try to explain why in my personal view this is such a timely initiative. The idea of establishing a Canadian volunteer service medal for United Nations peacekeeping has a great deal of merit, not the least of which is to bring Canada up to par with other peacekeeping contributing nations such as Belgium, the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which already award their own peacekeeping medals in addition to those awarded by the United Nations.

The new medal would also give visual recognition of the great honour that was bestowed upon Canada by our peacekeepers when the United Nations peacekeeping operations won the Nobel prize in September 1988. Indeed the idea has a great deal of merit. However it appears all the more relevant in light of a certain number of developments both on international and national levels that in recent years have demonstrated the need to seriously question ourselves on what peacekeeping represents to us and, in that light, what level of commitment we are prepared to live up to.

In the course of the debate that has been going on in Canada over the past few years on these issues it has appeared quite clear that Canada's involvement in peacekeeping operations is a reflection of its internationalist approach to world affairs.

The recent defence white paper concluded:

Multilateral security co-operation is not merely a Canadian tradition; it is an expression of Canadian values in the international sphere. We care about the course of events abroad and we are willing to work together with other countries to improve the lot of all manner of peoples.

The Reform Party has repeatedly echoed this international commitment. We believe that Canada's ability to play a role on the international scene rests to a large extent on our continued dedication to the principles of international co-operation and collective security.

Furthermore Canada is not blind to the lessons of history. Our historical experience has underscored the need to develop and maintain effective multilateral institutions that can confront as effectively as possible any challenge to international security and stability and, if all other means fail, respond to aggression with determination and leadership.

In so reflecting Canada's global values the Canadian forces have contributed incessantly to international security. Over the past few years the sheer number of UN sponsored interventions requiring Canadian participation has dramatically increased. The result has been to stretch Canada's peacekeeping resources to their extreme limit.

The nature of multilateral operations has also changed enormously. The range of activities these operations involve has expanded to encompass the complete set of military activities from preventive deployment and observation to enforcement and reconstruction.

This has spurred a debate at the international level about the need to more clearly determine the nature of any multilateral operation, whether peacekeeping, peacemaking or humanitarian, before deployment actually takes place.

In Canada we have become more sensitive to the need to define the conditions under which our forces will be deployed in areas of conflict.

From the perspective of those Canadian men and women who serve or who have served under UN command, and on whose behalf I speak today, these developments have meant more intensive training, increased stress and wider responsibilities. Although most of us do not have an immediate knowledge of what a soldier's job entails, it must be clear to all of us that the

political and military trends in the nineties have made the soldier's job considerably more difficult than in any other era.

Not since the Korean war have Canadian servicemen and women been burdened with such a wide array of responsibilities at home and abroad. Increasingly these people are asked to move beyond their traditional role of seeing to the nation's defence into non-traditional areas such as the delivery of humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of war-ravaged societies.

The physical and psychological strains associated with immersing oneself in an alien culture and with meeting stringent performance criteria are necessary so that both the individual and the group can withstand the ultimate test of combat. While they must be ready to endure the most difficult and unfriendly working conditions, the soldiers of the nineties must also be flexible. They are asked to be diplomats, aid workers, law enforcement officers as well as warriors. They are expected to exercise an unprecedented level of self-discipline by constantly adapting to fit the prevailing situation.

In wartime, roles and objectives are clearly defined. In operations other than war, the soldier is often forced to change roles from day to day, even moment to moment. The peacekeeper must draw on his combat infantry skills if a fire fight breaks out, and then revert to his diplomatic or humanitarian self. The soldier of the nineties must be more educated than ever before. He must be acquainted with political, military and sociocultural dynamics of the crisis area in which he has been deployed. That is not an easy feat, if we consider the intractable nature of some of the conflicts which Canada has helped to monitor.

The complex security problems which confront the international community today defy easy solutions. Often those solutions, for which a multilateral response has been deemed the most appropriate, are also the most complicated. Some conflicts, such as the ones in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, are ones for which it is very difficult to define objectives that reflect a clear sense of perspective.

Moreover, soldiers are asked to perform to the best of their ability, even in the most ambiguous and uncertain situations. They are expected to be sensitive to political, social and cultural realities on which even their superiors are unable to provide information and leadership.

It is also important for the Canadian government to recognize this state of affairs. Peacekeepers have served Canada's interests well since the end of the second world war. This contribution from our servicemen and women has become more and more costly in terms of personal commitment and loss of life.

A Canadian volunteer service medal would not compensate for the sacrifice and deprivation, whether physical or emotional, nor can it constitute a form of restitution for the families of those who have given their lives in the search for peace. The Canadian volunteer service medal must be seen as a token of our collective appreciation, as a formal recognition by the people and the Government of Canada of the increasingly perilous and arduous role demanded of peacekeepers and, as my colleague said, of "their continued display of courage and dedication to their assignments, which have been the hallmark of Canadian peacekeepers".

I certainly support this bill.