Bill Graham

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of privilege and responsibility that I rise in the House to debate this extraordinarily important subject this evening.

I feel particularly responsible, given the incredible role our troops are playing in the former Yugoslavia. I sense like every other member of Parliament the responsibility we have toward those marvellous men and women for what they are achieving in that difficult part of the world.

In trying to understand this matter, I have asked myself four questions. I think we should consider them when we discuss whether it would be appropriate to withdraw our troops at this time or to continue the mandate until a more orderly type of withdrawal can be achieved with either the whole of the United Nations forces or of our own troops.

The four questions are these: Are our troops performing an important role where they are? Is their contribution special? What would be the consequences of their withdrawal? How are our overall interests served by their presence there? Let me take the time to examine those issues.

Is the role of our troops in the former Yugoslavia an important one? To that I think every member of this House would have to reply an unqualified yes. Looking at the area of peacekeeping, our troops have performed an exemplary service I would say at the core of the United Nations operation in the former Yugoslavia. They have had a great deal of success. Of course there have

been problems, but overall we should look at the achievements on the peacekeeping side.

Our troops are very close to Sarajevo. Our troops are in one part of the former Yugoslavia which covers all three belligerent areas. Our troops are the only ones covering that delicate and sensitive area. Our troops are playing a primordial and important role in terms of peacekeeping. They are performing a role of humanitarian aid which was so effectively described by the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception that I need not repeat it. However, we must bear that in mind.

The second question I asked myself was is our contribution significant? We are but one of 35 countries in the former Yugoslavia and have contributed 2,000 soldiers to the 43,000 troops stationed there.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he was not proud of the contribution our troops have made. Like the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I personally am proud of our troops' accomplishments in the former Yugoslavia. I am proud of their humanity and proud of their professionalism.

The other night I saw on television a young sergeant who had an enormous responsibility. Day in, day out, with unparalleled devotion, intelligence and professionalism, this peerless soldier resolved issues and extremely difficult problems.

I am convinced that the regiments who will replace the troops there now, such as the 22nd Royal Regiment from Quebec, will serve in the tradition that it has maintained for the duration of its long and glorious history.

Therefore, I reject the Leader of the Opposition's statements. I reject the statements of the hon. member for Verchères. I believe that this is not a partisan issue and that this debate should rise above any inappropriate partisanship. We should be examining these serious issues from the viewpoint of the well-being of our troops and our country.

Let me ask the question: What would the consequences be of a withdrawal at this time? We know this is a tense situation. We have read what Lord Owen has said about the difficult situation that prevails there at the moment. What would the effect be of our withdrawing our troops at this time? What would the effect be on the other UN troops there? Think of the demoralizing effect that would have on them. Think of the effect on the belligerents.

We, along with our allies, took extreme umbrage at the suggestion by the leader of Croatia that UN troops should be removed from Croatia. We told him that UN troops must be kept there because it is a tinderbox which is likely to explode into uncontrolled war if UN troops are withdrawn.

Having exercised that influence on the leader of Croatia, are we to withdraw those troops? Are we to create the very situation of ethnic cleansing and problems that we have seen in the past? I ask myself what the effect of withdrawal would be. I suggest that it would be a precipitating event in creating a crisis.

The member for Red Deer does not seem to be taking that into account. He is suggesting that we can steal away in the night like a Turk with bag and baggage, that no one will miss us and there will be no consequence of that. There will be a consequence. If we try to steal away we may create the very situation of war which will make it impossible for us to withdraw in an orderly way. On top of that, we will leave exposed in the former Yugoslavia the magnificent Mounties who are serving there in a civilian way which is truly an extraordinary example of Canadian devotion.

Last, is it in our global and general interests to be in the former Yugoslavia until a more orderly withdrawal may be organized? It is true, as the member for Red Deer may say, we have done our share. There is no one in the House who would say that we have not done our share. I dare to say there is nobody among our allies who would say we have not done our share. I am sure there is no one in the civilian population of the ex-Yugoslavia who would not say that the Canadian troops have done their share.

The question is not that. The question is whether or not our general interests are served by our staying there and continuing to do our share, continuing to help the people of ex-Yugoslavia and continuing to help the cause of peace as it is to be developed. I would suggest that the effect on our allies would be extremely devastating if we were to leave at this time. Our European allies are counting on our being there.

When we consider issues of global security and foreign policy we must never divorce one issue from another. Does anyone in this House not doubt the fact that one of the reasons we have been so successful in dealing with the Europeans over the issues on the Grand Banks is precisely because we are in Yugoslavia and because we are a force in Europe? Our European friends cannot turn to us and say: "We can treat you the way we want to".

We are making a contribution in Europe. We are helping the Europeans solve their problems. We are helping solve world peace in our own interests but in their interests as well. That makes us a force in world affairs. It gives us a force in dealing with them in every other sector. We must never forget that. That

is what strategy is about. That is what foreign policy is about. We cannot ignore these larger issues.

Furthermore, what about the Americans? If we withdraw on the ground, the United States at this moment is taking the attitude that it can stand above these frays. It can fly over at 30,000 feet and not put troops on the ground. We have a moral superiority in dealing with our American colleagues at this time because of the tremendous contribution our forces are making. It establishes a credibility in dealing with the United States that we must never forget.

We owe it to our forces on the ground. We owe it to those magnificent troops.

Finally, we owe it to ourselves in terms of the United Nations. The House has often spoken about the need for the United Nations to be revitalized. This House has often spoken about the need for a more effective United Nations if Canada's interests and values are to be protected in the world. Those interests and those values will be protected by our continuing to be a reliable member of the United Nations forces and enabling the United Nations to improve its situation.

I leave by suggesting that our interests require us to stay at this time. Furthermore, our troops there are enforcing Canadian values by performing a humanitarian and difficult task in terrible circumstances with a devotion and superb professionalism of which all of us may be very proud.

[Health, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Every day AIDS continues to take the lives of Canadians from my riding and across the country. AIDS organizations must conduct effective research and education, prevent the spread of AIDS and support victims and their families. They require consistent and stable funding.

Can the minister confirm or deny reports that there are to be cuts to vital AIDS funding this year?

[Committees Of The House, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This report is about the nomination of Robert Fowler to the position of ambassador and permanent representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York.

Your committee reviewed the qualifications of the person appointed and declared him competent to perform the duties of his position.

[Literacy, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is literacy week in Canada.

The ability to read and write empowers people. It enables them to improve their position in an increasingly complex economy, to avail themselves of their rights and fulfil their duties in our country with its democratic privileges and responsibilities and to better understand themselves and the world around them.

Literacy is an essential element of every modern society and we can be proud of the fact that this government has named a minister responsible for literacy and has established a secretariat with the mandate of eliminating illiteracy nationwide.

Personally, I am very proud of Frontier College located in my Toronto riding and the leadership it provides in this field. It and other institutions like it and thousands of volunteers work on literacy programs that make an important contribution to our society.

If not addressed, illiteracy has heavy costs for Canada and for those individuals who struggle with the problem every day of their lives.

[International Development, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is International Development Week. As we focus on our own problems, we Canadians must also remind ourselves from time to time that the vast majority of humankind is not as well off as we are. We must also recognize that our own interests and values require that we aid others in development.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning, aid for development attacks the threats to our own security that are posed by over-population, poverty, disease and conflicts in other countries. It also allows us to share our Canadian values of tolerance and pluralism; aid women in development; encourage the establishment of a vibrant private sector in developing economies; and help others create the foundations for democratic government that make this country so great.

In this development week we salute the non-governmental organizations, churches and other Canadian institutions, and the millions of individual Canadians who make such a tremendous contribution to others in the world, while enriching us all in the process.

[Committees Of The House, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This report relates to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. The committee considered this bill and presents this report with amendments which it recommends to this House.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House a petition which prays that this House will speedily recognize the need to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The petition is signed by over 90 Canadians. I am pleased to support this petition.

[World Human Rights Day, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 10, we celebrated World Human Rights Day and the 46th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The declaration establishes basic international standards for fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteeing the dignity and worth of every human being.

[Translation]

Several Canadians, including Professor John Humphrey of McGill, helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has had a tremendous influence on international law and the behaviour of states. In Canada in particular, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms many of the basic principles set forth in the declaration.

The United Nations Year for Tolerance as well as the International Decade for Indigenous Peoples will also begin in 1995.

Human rights affect the daily lives of everyone. We can all take pride that our government is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms of all people in Canada and around the world.

[Human Rights, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday, December 10 is World Human Rights Day.

As Canadians, we can be proud of our contribution to the international community on the issue of human rights and on the development of international standards to which we adhere.

This said, we must also be ever vigilant that our human rights respect international standards and ensure the right of all Canadians to live free from discrimination in this country.

A recent decision of the United Nations human rights committee ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the equality guarantees of the international covenant on civil and political rights, a document which Canada helped prepare and which binds us.

Let us in remembering World Human Rights Day recognize that it is our duty to ensure that our laws in this country are amended to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including any based on sexual orientation.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with what the Bloc member who just spoke said about economic integration in particular, because of what it means for the people of Quebec and Ontario.

I represent an Ontario riding. We Ontarians realize that our future and our economy are closely tied to Quebec. Quebec is our best market, our number one economic partner. So, it is only normal that the party opposite talk about the connection between Ontario and Quebec, about the close economic ties that will always exist between us.

The question is: how will we plan our future together? We see it as part of a federal system. You are considering keeping the Canadian dollar as legal currency. I ask you: what is the point of continuing to use the Canadian currency in an independent Quebec? If that is what you want, so be it. At present, in this House, you have a Prime Minister from Quebec and the Minister of Finance, also from Quebec, ensuring that you have some control over this currency. If tomorrow, from an Ontario point of view, you will have an independent Quebec, why are you planning to keep the Canadian currency? It may be a good idea, but then, it must made quite clear to the people of Quebec that the rest of Canada will insist on controlling its own currency, while Quebec, if an arrangement is negotiated, will hold only 25 per cent of the voting power under a possible arrangement on a common currency.

Today, you have some control over this currency. Tomorrow, you will only have an interest, with the rest of Canada, with the others, and yours will be a minority interest. So, when you say that what you do in Quebec will be determined democratically, bear in mind that whatever you do affects the rights and interests of other Canadians who, like me as an Ontarian, have respect for Quebecers and have this to say to them: "Yes to democracy. Yes, Quebecers have the right to decide their future democratically, as long as this is done with full knowledge of what is at stake".

Let us not lose sight of the facts amid this pile of hypotheses, hypotheses that are not at all correct and that you have selected. If you are really democratic, include us in the process, so that the people of Quebec can see, so that they have a chance to see whether these hypotheses are realistic or not. That is the problem with your process. That is why your process is not democratic.

I will conclude with a word on an entirely different matter, which nontheless is related to the democratic process. In Ontario, we have a strong French-speaking minority which has been campaigning for many years for its survival. Bear in mind also, in your democracy, when you make your choices, what will become of the French language in Ontario.