Art Hanger

[Immigration And Refugee Board, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Michael Schelew might be gone from the IRB, but his presence and the presence of other like minded IRB members continues to be felt.

Within the next couple of days in Edmonton a refugee claim being made by an American woman claiming spousal abuse will be heard by a full member panel of the IRB. Hundreds of other refugee claims will be made this year by people who come from democratic nations. Surely the minister can see how ludicrous this is.

Will the minister agree to a full review of the way the IRB determines refugee status and who is eligible to make a claim in the first place?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary certainly knew all about the settlement.

Mr. Schelew did not operate in a vacuum. He could not have caused such an increase in refugee acceptance rates without the assistance of other Immigration and Refugee Board members. The Canadian acceptance rate for refugee claimants is now at an astronomical 70 per cent. One man could not have created this wave them through attitude all by himself.

I ask again, will the minister in the interests of preserving the integrity and legitimacy of the Canadian refugee determination system hold a public review of the Immigration and Refugee Board?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be appalled at the way this government does business.

The minister appoints a good friend to the IRB who is then the subject of some very serious allegations. The minister orders a judicial inquiry into his friend's actions, citing concerns about the integrity of the IRB and the public's perception of a cover up. Suddenly the minister's headache disappears, at a cost to the taxpayer of $100,000.

Does the minister not think that the whole Schelew affair has seriously damaged the credibility of the IRB? Did he know beforehand about the $100,000 given to Schelew upon his dismissal?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago the minister of immigration did the honourable thing and called a judicial inquiry into the activities of Michael Schelew, the vice-chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Serious accusations of intimidation and artificially inflating refugee acceptance rates had been levelled at Schelew. The minister said an inquiry would dispel any notion that his department wanted to cover the matter up. On the day the inquiry was to begin it was abruptly cancelled. We learned that Mr. Schelew was given $100,000 in exchange for his resignation.

Mr. Schelew may be gone but the problems with the IRB remain. Will the minister order an immediate public review of the entire Immigration and Refugee Board?

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to give customs officers more legal power to seize fraudulent documents. We applaud that intent. However, customs has informed us that this measure is totally unenforceable and therefore without greater enforcement ability the intent of the bill is moot.

That is why we oppose the bill. It would give Canadians a false sense of security. However, this amendment by the Bloc would gut even the good intent of the bill. The Bloc and Reform view immigration law from an entirely different philosophical perspective. Its amendment reflects its philosophy. Our opposition to the amendment reflects ours.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again very briefly, we oppose these amendments.

As I said before this bill is unenforceable. The specifics of this bill have been roundly criticized by all witnesses before the standing committee, albeit from different philosophical points of view. The direction the bill takes, that is to toughen up immigration law to protect Canadians and to make the department of immigration more accountable is acceptable to my party. In fact my party has pushed for changes in this direction. However, this bill as written will not result in real change. It will only result in an increased backlog with no additional enforcement staff. The intent is there but the means are lacking.

The Bloc amendment would remove the intent of the bill. That we cannot support.

My party is opposed to these amendments.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The motions being offered in amendment by my hon. colleague from the Bloc would thoroughly gut this bill.

We oppose the amendments, not because we support the bill. While the bill is unenforceable and poorly thought out, its intent is acceptable. These amendments would have the effect of removing even the good intent of the bill.

Specifically the amendments remove the authority of senior immigration officers dealing with removals and deportations. They take away authority from the minister and deputy minister to apply removal law to visitors in Canada.

In short, my colleagues in the Bloc want the status quo in immigration or less than status quo. They do not want to see a change in refugee policy but I believe the Bloc does not speak for Canadians in this area. They do not think that Canada's immigration law needs to be toughened up. Needless to say, we disagree. Therefore we oppose these amendments.

[Petitions, December 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the last petition deals with immigration levels. It has 128 signatures from various parts of the country.

The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to reduce immigration to the previous average level of one-half of 1 per cent of the population, or about 150,000 per year, with the basic intake of not less than 50 per cent of the total composed of carefully selected skilled workers required by the Canadian economy and to bring our refugee acceptance rate in line with the average of other asylum destination countries.

I heartily agree with all petitions.

[Petitions, December 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker the third petition deals with the sanctity of human life. There are 305 signatures from my riding.

The petitioners pray that Parliament acts 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.

[Petitions, December 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with the topic of euthanasia, one with 242 signatures and the other with 93.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament makes no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.