Preston Manning

[Immigration And Refugee Board, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the board has guidelines.

I would like to follow this up. We are not concerned just about conflict of interest but also whether these guidelines cover influence peddling.

I have a 1992 memo written for Mr. Schelew and other members of the refugee lawyer's association by Greg James in which sitting IRB members are tracked and rated on the basis of the percentage of refugee claims they have accepted. This is the type of raw material required for influence peddling and both Mr. James and Mr. Schelew are now on the board.

What guidelines, if any, are in place to protect the IRB process from influence peddling by immigration insiders?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of immigration spoke in glowing terms about the quality of his recent appointments to the immigration and refugee board.

However, some of these appointments have been high priced advocates of the employees of the immigration industry, people with a vested interest in high immigration and refugee levels and complicated administrative procedures. Coupled with a patronage based appointment system, this creates the potential for continued and systemic conflict of interest.

What if any guidelines are in place to protect the IRB process from conflict of interest on the part of IRB members?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are problems with the application of the Privacy Act in the minister's own office.

Yesterday the justice minister said that he could not release the details of his official's advice to the minister of immigration on the Schelew affair because: "It is not the practice of the Department of Justice to disclose publicly the advice that it gives to client departments". It seems however that the immigration department practice is to release confidential advice at the drop of a hat, especially when the hat belongs to the minister's friend.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Are there two standards of privacy in the country; one for the protection of ministers of the crown and another for the protection of ordinary Canadian citizens?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let us discuss one particular appointment then. The minister's friend, Mr. Schelew, is accused of bullying board members into making decisions which were against their best judgment. Then when an investigation is proposed he attempts to influence his accusers with information released by the minister's own department.

Surely this is grounds for the dismissal of this particular appointee. Will the minister now ask for his friend's resignation, or does he condone this type of behaviour on behalf of his own appointees?

[Immigration And Refugee Board, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, from all accounts members of the Immigration and Refugee Board can be divided into at least two camps: the Tory appointments led by the chair of the committee, Ms. Mawani, and the Liberal appointments headed by the minister's friend, Mr. Schelew.

Documents have been leaked; confidential conversations have been released; and the Privacy Act has been thrown out the window. All this turmoil at the IRB is the result of an appointment system rife with patronage and political infighting.

My question is for the minister. Will the minister now admit that the IRB should be completely freed from political patronage? Will he establish a more credible process for dealing with immigrant and refugee applications?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an example of a gross error in judgment or in conduct unbecoming to a minister or a Prime Minister, or both. It has also made a mockery of the office of the ethics counsellor.

Will the Prime Minister allow the ethics counsellor to report directly to Parliament on the conduct of the Prime Minister's own office in this affair?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an example of a grave error in judgment or unethical conduct, or both.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair from the letter writing to the Prime Minister's comments is either an example of gross stupidity or unethical conduct, or both.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to accept responsibility for comments that he made to the House.

The Prime Minister clearly declared that the ethics counsellor had been consulted and said nothing that changed the Prime Minister's mind about his decision to retain the heritage minister. In fact, the ethics counsellor was not asked to give a ruling on that matter so how could he have provided advice to the Prime Minister on that subject?

Could the Prime Minister explain this contradiction between his own comments and the comments of the ethics counsellor?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, October 27, the Prime Minister said regarding the heritage minister affair: "I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and confirmed that I had made the right decision in this matter". On Friday in the House he said: "I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself but I asked that he be consulted". Today we find out that in fact no one, neither the Prime Minister nor his staff, asked the ethics counsellor to rule specifically on the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC.

The ethics counsellor's revelations on national television this morning contradict every version of events that the Prime Minister has given us. I ask the Prime Minister: How does he explain his previous comments to the House?