Debates of Feb. 20th, 1995

Young Offenders Act

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, worried about the federal government's unwillingness to intervene while Canadian customs tariffs are under attack from the U.S., I questioned the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last Friday. What I was asking the minister to do was to ready his

guns and get down to confronting the Americans on the yogurt and ice cream issue.

Let me remind you briefly of the cause for my concern. According to U.S. commerce secretary, Mickey Kantor, Canada is in breach of the North American free trade agreement when it imposes tariffs varying between 100 and 300 per cent on ice cream, yogurt, eggs and poultry exported to the U.S. On the other hand, under the GATT agreements, customs tariffs should be going down gradually over the next six years.

That is where I start having a problem with the Liberal government's inaction. The minister stated that the Canadian government was determined to defend dairy and poultry producers. I wish I could believe the government, but if it acts in the future like it did in the past, after seeing what it has done to Article XI of the GATT agreement, I must say that I can only doubt the good will, the genuine willingness of the minister and his government.

In response to my question, the minister also reiterated his government's support to the Canadian supply management system. In my sense, nothing is more uncertain than the Canadian government's willingness to fight for our supply management system. I would not be surprised if the government's feebleness on the ice cream and yogurt issue were the price to be paid to the Americans for resolving the conflict over Western wheat last summer.

One way to settle this dispute that may very well, in my opinion, degenerate into a trade war is to stop putting our heads in the sand and fight for recognition of GATT's precedence over NAFTA. All we have said so far is that GATT should indeed prevail, but we do not say it too loud to keep our American partners from hearing us.

Three days ago, the minister gave me the following answer: "If the United States has a different point of view and wants to take a run at us, we obviously cannot stop it from taking a run at us, but if it does, we will defend ourselves with everything we have". Incidentally, what do we have to defend our farmers with?

I do not think the minister has any effective means to defend our farmers because he has not gone to a GATT panel that could settle the Canada-U.S. dispute. Allow me to quote the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada: "Unfortunately, the U.S.-based controversy surrounding the GATT and NAFTA regulations on tariff quotas has reached such proportions that our dairy producers are increasingly doubtful that Canada will succeed in negotiating a bilateral agreement that will benefit them". This quote does not come from me.

In a news bulletin, a few moments ago, I heard Claude Rivard and the vice-president of the Quebec milk producers' federation at a press conference here in Ottawa beg the government to show some guts and take action.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments tonight.

On February 2 the United States trade representative, Ambassador Kantor, requested formal consultations under NAFTA relating to the U.S. access to the Canadian market for dairy and poultry products.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade have repeated frequently and remain of the view that our application of tariff equivalents in our bilateral trade in poultry and dairy products, including ice cream and yogurt, is fully consistent with our rights under GATT and NAFTA. In fact, the ministers issued a press release on February 2 of this year setting out that view so there could be no misunderstanding on it. The Canadian position has not changed and is not changing. Moreover, both ministers stated their view again in this House last Friday.

The U.S. request for consultations should be seen as just that, a request to meet with us and to discuss the issue. The fact that the U.S. is seeking consultations under the dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA does give it a more formal character, I agree, but it does not alter its fundamental nature.

Requests for formal consultations occur quite frequently between trading partners. Sometimes they are in the form of a panel before they are over. Other times the consultations are adequate to resolve the issue. In some cases they are concluded only after lengthy discussions.

We expect these consultations to start in the next week or so. In this particular case we are satisfied that our legal position is sound and we will continue to hold our own. Our preferred approach is a negotiated solution.

It could be expected that the issue might arise in the upcoming visit of Mr. Clinton to Ottawa. If it does, the Canadian line will not change. We are acting within our trade agreement rights and we will defend those rights.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I put a question to the minister responsible for social housing about the unfair way Quebec is being treated with respect to social housing.

I wanted to ask him whether he was aware of the fact that Quebec has had a potential loss of $100 million per year for several years. On a per capita basis, Quebec should receive at least 25 per cent of CMHC spending, but at the present time, it gets only 20 per cent. One hundred million dollars annually is a

lot of money. If we were to calculate this on the basis of need, Quebec should receive as much as 29 per cent of the CMHC budget.

So a shortfall of $100 million annually for Quebec is a lot of money, and that is a conservative estimate. In fact, this is all part of the government's attempt to get another $25 million or $26 million out of the pockets of people who live in so-called social housing. The government intends to raise rents by 20 per cent. It looks more like the government has no social housing policy at all.

Funding for social housing has been frozen since the Liberal Party came to power. Quebec is not getting its fair share, and now they want to raise the rents of the neediest group in Quebec. Would the government like to clarify this? Would it at least admit that this is unfair, and would it like to explain what it is doing with respect to social housing? Does this government have a social housing policy?

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's statement.

I want to be very clear on one point. This government is committed within the current financial climate to social housing for all Canadians in need. This includes those Canadians who reside in the province of Quebec.

In order to fully understand how existing housing expenditures are made, my friend must recognize that in the early years of public housing the province of Quebec elected not to participate. For example, under the old rent supplement program, Ontario began participating in 1971, whereas Quebec only joined in 1978. In those years, Ontario delivered 9,500 units for which it continues to receive subsidies, whereas Quebec delivered no units and as such has no subsidy.

Notwithstanding history, our friend across the way must understand that dollars for new housing commitments in Canada are now distributed according to a formula based on core need, not on population. That important distinction must be recognized. According to these principles, each region receives its share of housing dollars for new commitments.

In 1993-94, some $350 million was spent in Quebec, which provided assistance for more than 140,000 social housing units. Quebec also received additional funds because of special circumstances. I am referring to the $4 million provided under the RESO program established to improve living conditions in southwestern Montreal and promote local development.

I am also referring to the $5 million given to the Montreal owner-occupants whose homes were damaged by the drought.

Finally, on the point of the alleged $100 million that is not going into Quebec, my friend is aware that the number he is using is false. He knows it. It is most regrettable that the member and the Bloc Quebecois are attempting to play separatist games on the backs of those in Quebec who can least afford it. He should come clean with Canadians and Quebecers.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that I understood neither the Immigration and Refugee Board nor the refugee process.

As for my supposed misunderstanding of immigration law, section 19.1(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) of the Immigration Act clearly states the grounds by which an individual is to be refused admission into Canada. It states that one is not to be allowed into Canada if they are: first, likely to pose a danger to public health or safety; second, would cause excessive demands on the health care system; or third, are unable to support themselves in society.

Given Mr. Arthur Lasha fits all these grounds, he should not have been allowed into Canada and should be both stripped of his status and returned to his native Poland. In regard to the specifics of the case, according to numerous reports, this HIV infected individual was accepted as a refugee by the IRB based both on the disease he carries and the reaction the Polish people showed toward him.

Mr. Lasha's claims are ludicrous and the IRB should have known the following. First, the Polish parliament is currently in the process of passing a broadly supported bill recognizing same sex marriages. Second, a constitutional amendment recognizing the equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality is in the process of being adopted there. Therefore, the claim that there is systematic discrimination against homosexuals and, as in Mr. Lasha's case, HIV carriers, is groundless.

Clearly Mr. Lasha has not been entirely honest in describing his homeland. The minister has not accurately portrayed the facts in terms of refugee claims based on homosexuality. The minister said that only two such claims have come before the IRB.

In Newfoundland alone the claim has 90 per cent acceptance rate. According to a legal aid official in that province it is becoming a popular approach to staying in this country.

The minister spoke a great deal about Mr. Lasha being a member of a social group, that being by sexual orientation, and cited the Supreme Court of Canada as having made that decision.

In the 1993 case of Canada v. Ward, the Supreme Court set out the guidelines for assessing whether an individual was a member of a social group. There were three possibilities: first, groups defined by an innate or immutable characteristic; second, groups defined by an association so important to their human dignity that they should not be forced to forsake the association; and third, groups defined by a former voluntary status, immutable due to historic permanence.

The court also suggested possible groups for examination, including homosexuality, but added it was the job of legislators, not the courts, to decide whether or not homosexuality could be considered a social group.

Given that the question of whether homosexuality is the result of genetic makeup or environmental influence is far from being settled, the minister cannot say whether Mr. Lasha was or was not a member of a social group.

The IRB was therefore gravely misguided to make this judgment on the assumption that this individual held an innate or immutable characteristic.

To conclude, in this case the IRB was wrong on a number of accounts. It ignored several subsections of section 19 of the Immigration Act, placing an unfair burden on the health care system and Canadian society as a whole.

Second, it failed to examine Polish society and the accepting environment that the government is fostering toward the homosexual community.

Third, it failed to use the definition of social group properly, as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Given all this, it is clear that the Immigration and Refugee Board has failed those legitimately seeking protection in Canada from well founded persecution. It has failed Canadian society by allowing in those who clearly should not be admitted into this country.

Now that the minister is fully aware of the facts of this case, will he not accurately portray the facts about immigration application and acceptance? Second, will he have this individual deported immediately? Third, will he disband the IRB? Fourth, will he replace the IRB with competent immigration officials armed with well established guidelines centred around helping those from around the world truly in need of immediate protection?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the decision was made by the Immigration and Refugee Board which is a quasi-judicial independent decision making body.

On the broad general issue of sexual orientation there are two compelling facts that may help explain the issue. In June 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation constitutes membership in a particular social group.

As well, the Geneva convention recognizes that in certain countries, members of particular social groups have grounds to fear persecution. It is on these grounds that individuals are eligible to apply for refugee status, not only in Canada but in all other countries that are signatories to the Geneva convention.

This case does not set a precedent. To date there have only been two cases on the basis of sexual orientation. One claim was determined to be negative. The other, the claim the member raises, was determined to be positive following an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.,

Let me inform the member that Canada is not the only country to accept refugees on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact the United States, Germany and New Zealand have all accepted the positive claims on the basis of sexual orientation.

In conclusion, when claims are evaluated it is with a view to offering Canada's protection from systemic persecution and abuse. I remind the member that Canada has been internationally recognized for its compassion and thorough stand on human rights issues when it comes to refugee determination in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House has now been deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)