Bill Graham

[Petitions, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present a petition signed by 210 citizens of my riding and elsewhere in Canada praying that Parliament amend the human rights code to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[World Aids Day, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World AIDS Day.

The presence of HIV and AIDS in our communities is a constant reminder of our vulnerability as individuals and as members of the human race. Many members of this House, and far too many Canadians, many of whom live in my riding of Rosedale, will be familiar with the human tragedy associated with living with HIV and of grieving for the loss of friends and loved ones.

The effects of HIV and AIDS are suffered by individuals and families now estimated worldwide at 17 million men, women and children. Measures to reduce the vulnerability of women to HIV/AIDS, the need to strengthen AIDS associations, and the need to address related human rights and ethical issues are now of paramount concern to us all.

These issues, as well as the cure and immunization against AIDS, can only be effectively dealt with by co-ordinated, intensive, national and international efforts which Canada must not only support but lead.

Therefore we should all welcome the Prime Minister's attendance at the Paris summit on AIDS.

[Registered Retirement Savings Plan, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have contacted me recently regarding the advisability of taxing RRSPs. Many of them oppose taxing RRSPs because they are aware of the importance of RRSPs to individuals who are not employed by institutions and who have no other way of saving for their retirement. Taxing RRSPs would afford such people less protection than those who work for government, large corporations or other institutions. As a matter of principle such unequal treatment is unfair.

Taxing RRSPs runs counter to our government's active encouragement of the growth of small and medium size enterprises. Entrepreneurs running these businesses rely on the RRSP system to save for their futures.

Finally the Canadian savings rate is low. Investments in RRSPs may reduce immediate government tax revenue but create pools of capital for the benefit of all Canadians. This source of capital must not be forsaken merely to encourage immediate government consumption.

[John C. Polanyi, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on November 3 and November 4, 12 Nobel laureates from around the

world, four of whom are Canadian, will gather at the University of Toronto to inaugurate the John. C. Polanyi chair in chemistry. The celebration will be accompanied by a series of free public lectures entitled the "Science in Society Lectures" to be given by the laureates at the University of Toronto.

I mention this event not only because it honours a great Canadian, a wonderful professor at the University of Toronto and, if I may say, a resident of my riding of Rosedale, but also because it is a reminder of the important place which scientific research occupies in our modern Canadian society. It is a reminder of the role of our universities in ensuring that basic research continues to advance the interest of science and thus of all Canadians.

We all owe a great deal to the countless number of dedicated researchers throughout Canada of whom John Polanyi is one remarkable example. If Canada is to continue as one of the world's leading technological countries, we must support these men and women and the universities at which they work and teach.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak on this bill on the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This department has many extraordinary, important responsibilities but the one I would like to speak about to the House today relates to its responsibility for multiculturalism.

As the House knows, the Department of Canadian Heritage will be responsible for the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values as well as multiculturalism.

It seems to me that when we are speaking about this topic we owe it to ourselves to look at it from the point of view of our ridings, which includes our neighbours and our friends, and also our country and the importance which this subject has for the development of Canada. I would like to look at it from both those perspectives.

I have the privilege to represent the riding of Rosedale which includes some of the most complex areas of downtown Toronto. In St. Jamestown, which is part of my riding consisting of about 10,000 people, we estimate there are some 57 language groups represented. Some wonderful communities are there, including the Filipino community. I belong to a group called the Circulo Ilongo which is a group of Filipinos who come from a certain part of the Philippines.

I have learned a great deal about Filipino values and about Filipino food and about Filipino love for one another and their values and the strength they are bringing to my community of Rosedale and to my neighbourhood that I never would have known anything about had I not had the privilege of associating myself with them as their elected representative. I am proud to say to the member for Winnipeg North who is here with us today as a representative of the Filipino community "Mabuhai", welcome and love from the members of the Filipino community. He represents a great contribution that the Filipino community is making to our society.

We have a Tamil community in my riding and there we have located the Tamil resources centre. This centre, located in Toronto, contains the largest collection of Tamil language literature outside of India in the world. In Toronto today we are publishing three books in Tamil. I could go on.

The question is does one see this as a threat, or does one see this evolution in our society as a challenge and an opportunity?

There are two very diverse opinions. I have listened to the speeches in this House on this subject. I listened to the member for Wild Rose who, it seemed to me, considered this as really a threat to Canadian development. I had an exchange the other day with the member for Calgary South who seemed to have the same attitude and who attacked the heritage languages program of the department of heritage.

I listened to the member for Saint-Denis who lives in a complex urban riding in Montreal and who cited the president of the Royal Bank who said that it is precisely this complex, rich cultural linguistic grouping that represents the strength of Canada as we go into the 21st century, that represents the pool of human capital that will enable us to participate in an ever enclosed and more integrated global village in which we live.

I much prefer the perception of the president of the Royal Bank and my colleague from Saint-Denis because it represents the reality of Canadian cultural experience. It represents Canadian values, those of tolerance and acceptance. It represents Canadian interests in terms of how we are going to deal with the future of the world and it represents the way the world is evolving.

One of the members across the way called out that it represents the Liberals. It does represent the Liberals. It represents Liberal values. I am proud to speak for these values and proud to speak for a party that represents those values and insists on them. I am proud to be a member of a party that recognizes the way the world is evolving.

Members opposite can laugh. Are they not watching the way the world is evolving? Do they not know what is happening around them? I have talked to their representatives on the trade committee. I have spoken to other members of the Reform Party. They know what is happening in globalization. Their members came with us when we travelled across the country with our international trade committee. We heard in Vancouver, Calgary and the Northwest Territories, where many Reform members come from, about the tremendous import and export opportunities that Canadians have.

We are living in an age of movement of goods, services and people across all jurisdictions and boundaries. As Canadians we have to be able to meet the demands of markets and complex areas of services. We must have knowledge of those markets. We have to be able to get into them. How do we get into those markets if we do not have the language skills and a knowledge of the culture of those markets in which we want to participate?

We have heard much about China in the House in the last while and for good reason. Many people estimate that by the year 2025 China will be the largest single economic factor in the world. As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said about China: "It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of man".

Napoleon said, when China comes on the scene: "Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera". This is true. Again, is this a danger or is it an opportunity for us? It is an opportunity for us. The third largest language group in Canada is Chinese. In Toronto alone there are 350,000 people of Chinese origin and in Vancouver there are more.

This month alone in Toronto we had four trade delegations from China led by senior representatives of the Government of China. All were spearheaded by relations that were established by people in our communities who speak the Chinese language, know the Chinese culture, are Canadian citizens and proud of it.

One of the proudest days of my life was a while ago when I talked to a colleague of mine, a person I consider to be a great friend who lives in downtown Toronto. He is Vietnamese. He told me the story of how he came to Canada 20 years ago as a Vietnamese refugee and how he barely survived. Today he has a prosperous business in downtown Toronto.

He told me of going to the Vietnamese embassy a while ago. He is Vietnamese of Chinese origin and so he speaks Chinese as well. He told me very proudly: "I went to the Vietnamese embassy, not cap in hand as a Vietnamese refugee but as a Canadian citizen who speaks Vietnamese and Chinese. I believe I can build a bridge between this society and the Asian society which is an important power of the future".

Those are the values to which this multiculturalism department addresses itself. The member opposite from the Bloc seems to consider this an invasion into the jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec citizens do not consider it that. They consider it an opportunity to participate in an evolving, extraordinary world.

We are a bicultural, bilingual, bijuridical society that has become multicultural. By multiculturalism I do not mean dance groups and festivals. I mean the creation of a society where other traditions, values, languages and cultures are respected within the Canadian mosaic and in which those cultures may flourish alongside and strengthen our own.

As I said earlier in this speech, my riding of Rosedale has as many as 57 different language groups represented. All these groups have rich cultural experiences to offer Canada and through Canada to the world. In that sense Canada may be, as has been said by others, the world's first non-nation country.

We are not a nation in the tribal sense of 19th century nations but rather a country which in many ways reflects the global society of which we are a part. Many other older states are now evolving in this direction.

We in this party and in this government are anxious to create instruments of government which reflect this new national and global reality. This bill moves us toward that important goal. I am proud to be a part of it and proud to support it.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the member for Calgary Southeast's assertions at the beginning of her speech to the effect that this government has no recognition whatsoever of the need to cut the debt and to deal with the deficit.

I cannot believe the member has not been listening to the statements of the Minister of Finance either in this House or outside the House that clearly indicate-surely she must give some form of recognition-that this government has recognized the problem of the debt. I have heard the Minister of Finance say over and over again that we cannot allow this debt to accumulate at the rate it is. He uses the same figures as the member uses. It seems to me that the difference is that we recognize the debt. We recognize that we cannot go on paying $40 billion a year in interest rates. When that represents the huge proportion that it does of the Government of Canada's annual spending of $160 billion it is totally intolerable. However, I have heard the finance minister say that before.

The difference between us is whether we go at this as a surgeon goes at a problem or whether we go at it the way a butcher would butcher an animal waiting to be slaughtered. That is the difference between the government and the approach which the member takes.

I sat and listened to her talk about the CBC, which I do not have time to comment on. I heard what she had to say about the heritage department and multicultural programs. I also heard her talk about the language programs whereby the multicultural and heritage language groups enable Canadians to maintain their languages.

I would suggest to the member that she speak to the trade critic in her party and find out the evidence we in the foreign affairs and international trade committee have heard about. There is a need for Canadians to be knowledgeable about other cultures and particularly the value which cultures such as the Chinese, the Koreans and others can bring with their own language and their own culture to advance Canadian interests. These are Canadian taxpayers spending money so that Canadians will benefit. We will receive tremendous benefits out of this in a future multicultural world that we are going into.

If we cut the programs the member suggests, I suggest to her that Canada will be less rich in a future world which will require more knowledge, more language and more competence among Canadians in the very areas she wants to cut out with her meat cleaver approach to deficit reduction.

[Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity of returning to a question which I asked the Minister of Justice some time ago with respect to the matter of gun control.

By way of introduction to this question which I will be asking again of the minister and pursuing this matter I want to remind all members of this House of some particularly important realities we have to bear in mind on this delicate and difficult issue. That is there is quite a difference in the perceptions of those who come from rural areas in our country who have specific interests and specific problems to address with respect to this debate and those of us who come from urban areas.

I come from an urban area where I want to bring to the attention of the minister the serious concerns that our fellow citizens have about this issue.

My riding of Rosedale I know is often associated in the minds of members of this House and others with the idea of a residential area of some wealth and some luxury, where we have many tree-lined streets and gardens. All of my riding is not like that. Much of my riding is an extremely densely populated urban area like many other complex dense urban areas in this country.

In that part of the riding we have apartment buildings where we have a serious problem with violence. We have places where the violence is related often to drug use. It is often related to young people and disaffected youth who are easily coming into contact and possession of firearms.

In Regent Park which is in my riding during the course of the last election two young men were shot. Recently bullets have been fired in that complex area around apartment buildings. Bullets went right through the window of some perfectly innocent people.

I am not describing a phenomenon that does not exist elsewhere in this country. I know from talking to other members and from talking to various people interested in this issue that this is a problem which exists elsewhere in this country as well.

The question is what is to be done and what is the minister going to do. That is the purpose of my question tonight. In asking that question I want to preface it by saying that when we look at it from an urban perspective clearly nobody needs long guns in an urban riding. Nobody needs a rifle or a shotgun living on Sherbourne Street where I live. The only people who have such guns are basically those who are are using them for sporting or for club purposes. There is no reason to have a handgun unless you are a police officer or a law enforcement officer.

The question then is how do we stop the cycle of violence we are looking at in these types of areas. How do we prevent our communities and ensure that our communities do not become like the United States where in fact a culture of violence is inculcated by television and by the media?

I want to address these questions to the minister. Where are we now on the question of registration of ownership? Where are we on controls of ammunition sales? Where are we on tougher restrictions on handguns and the prevention of cheaper guns coming in from the United States and border controls? Where are we on a complete ban on assault weapons of any kind? Where are we in our recognition that perhaps this problem calls out for a different solution in rural areas than in urban areas? Nobody in an urban area wants to prevent aboriginal people from carrying on their traditional way of life. Nobody in an urban area wants to prevent rural people who live on farms from having the firearms necessary either to hunt for recreation purposes or even just for pest control on their farms.

What we are looking for is protection in our urban areas. We also recognize that this may call for different solutions for different problems. I would ask the minister if there is any way in which the department is capable of drafting regulations which would recognize that fundamental difference between the way of life of those of us who live in cities and those of us who have different needs in the rural areas of our vast country.

[Human Rights, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Rosedale is a complex urban riding with a diverse social structure. As in most parts of Canada today, the people who live in it know that the health and well-being of their community depend upon an open, tolerant and pluralistic society in which discrimination against fellow citizens is not permitted and everyone is treated with mutual respect.

It is for that reason among others that I support Bill C-41 and welcome the statements of the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister that the government will introduce legislation amending Canada's human rights act to prohibit discrimination against persons based upon their sexual orientation.

This is not a question of creating special status for anyone; it is a matter of ensuring that all Canadians are treated equitably under the same circumstances. We must apply this principle of fairness to all members of the Canadian population if we are to guarantee their rights as individuals as well as our own development as a progressive and modern society.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has a great deal of experience in this matter having served as Solicitor General of the country.

He describes to us the American system which most of us regard with a considerable amount of concern and is obviously not providing a sensible solution by building more prisons and having longer sentences. It seems to be an infernal industry in the United States. They create the crime. They create the crime chasers and then they create the incarceration. There is no end to it.

The member gave a very cogent description of the problems in Florida and the juxtaposition of a death penalty in the morning and a murder in the afternoon. I understand his point about the lack of deterrence.

We also have the problem of the Canadian public desperately trying to understand what we can do. In our inner cities today we are confronted with serious problems. In my own riding of Rosedale I have serious problems in downtown Toronto. At a time 15 years ago gunshots did not ricochet off downtown buildings. Now there are women and children who are afraid to walk around at night in parts of downtown Toronto. It is no good to say we will seize all the guns. Admittedly that is a start but only a start. There will always be guns there.

Has the member found another model? Does he know of somewhere else? Is there some other model that he can draw to our attention from the depth of his experience that we could be looking at, something concrete to which we as Canadians can turn to address the problem of the violence that is getting worse in our inner cities and not react in the American way?

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Today we hear strong voices speaking out on gun control. In his statements the minister has recognized there is a legitimate role for firearms in rural communities. Can he also assure this House that he is prepared to take the necessary measures to ensure the security of our inner cities and urban communities where gun related violence is becoming a serious problem?