Bill Graham

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I see there are only another two minutes or so to speak on this matter. I am sorry I do not have the opportunity to speak for a longer period of time.

Let me pick up on the thread of what is being discussed about the trade war aspect of this bill. We have to bear in mind that these are very serious issues being raised in respect of trade matters. This government has a very proactive policy in respect of the trade aspects of it.

Members will recall that last year the minister herself called a meeting of culture ministers from around the world. They met here precisely to discuss this issue, diversity in international trade and how we can keep our cultural diversity in an interdependent world. I think the member will agree with me that this is extremely important as we go into this increasingly integrated world. That is why we have done that.

That is why we are trying to collaborate with other like-minded states in this area. That is why the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be having hearings across the country to determine what the interests of Canadians are as we go into these negotiations. The hon. member could sit in on some of the committee discussions to hear from our cultural communities who are telling us we need a stronger stance in international trade.

We recognize that the rules are not what we would like them to be. We have to go into these WTO negotiations recognizing this.

I have met with members of the cultural communities in my riding and across the country. They are saying that the Government of Canada is doing the right thing with Bill C-55. We recognize it is necessary to protect our magazines if we are going to have informed political discussion in this country.

When somebody asks me why I am in favour of Bill C-55 I say I am in favour for the same reason that I am in favour of gun control and of a health care system.

If it were nothing but American magazines being read in this country we would not have either of those measures to protect Canadian citizens because we would not be able to discuss them in the intelligent, in-depth way in which we should have the opportunity. That is why we are in favour of this bill.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, following on the vein of that question and the answer from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has he given serious thought to the way in which the WTO is presently working? Has he seen the way in which the Americans are operating with respect to the banana case and the way in which they are treating the Europeans in picking off one industry after another as a way of advancing their trade interests in a way that does not make the international trade system work very well?

Does he not think that in these circumstances we as Canadians have to stand up and say this is an important cultural issue for us, this is an important dimension of what we are trying to do and tell our American friends, “You would not put up with dumping things in your jurisdiction”. This is a form of dumping magazines into Canada. We are saying to them, “What we are asking for here, putting it in trade terms, is nothing more than a decent level playing field. You talk that way all the time. You ask for a level playing field. Give us a level playing field”. That is what we are saying, yet they do not seem to want to do it in these trade negotiations. They always want to have the upper hand.

I remember that George Will, one of those big correspondents in the United States, said that free trade is something that ranks somewhere between Christianity and jogging, as something much talked about and very little practised. That is the way the Americans approach this. They do not believe in free trade when it is coming into their markets; they believe in free trade when it is coming into our markets or other markets.

This is a very important issue for Canada. I know the member understands that. I would urge him to consider that we should not be put off by the Americans in this respect. I think we will have allies in Europe now because of the banana war. We will have other allies who recognize that this type of hardball tactic that is presently being resorted to will not make the WTO work and in fact will help destroy it.

Would the hon. member give some consideration to that?

[Petitions, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from across the city of Toronto praying that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

The standing committee has filed a report urging the abolition of nuclear weapons, and I am pleased to present this petition of citizens supporting that position.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, parliamentary assembly standing committee in Vienna, Austria, on January 14, 1999.

[Trade, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade. Trade negotiations will be started by the WTO in Seattle later this year. Economic sectors and issues of great interest to Canadians will be discussed there. What opportunity will Canadians have to provide their input into the preparation for these important negotiations?

[Bilingualism, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the recent row over bilingualism policy in Reform Party ranks illustrates both the inability of Reform to accept the reality of Canada and the heavy handedness of the party leadership when one of its own steps out of line.

The Reform Party's official spokesperson for bilingualism welcomed the government's policy on bilingualism, only to be jumped on by the party whip and the member for Yellowhead who stated that “we aren't a bilingual country” and that bilingual policies in Toronto do not make sense.

We, the Liberal members from Toronto, are very proud of Toronto's multicultural character. But we are also determined to help the French language flourish in our city. This language is part of our heritage and is spoken by our fellow Franco-Ontarians as well as many of us, and its existence in Toronto's schools, theatres and homes enriches us all.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. He says we cannot keep peace where there is no peace, but in fact the presence of the forces in the Central African Republic is establishing at this particular point an important sense of stability in that country to enable democratic elections which if we withdraw at this time will make it impossible. The member will probably agree with me that it would be very foolish for us to withdraw at this crucial time when we can keep those troops there until such time as the elections can be held.

The Central African Republic is a special case. I appreciate that his comments are more directed toward the problem of Kosovo because that is the more difficult one and the one which will require the greater number of troops. It is precisely the threat of the use of force in Kosovo which is enabling us to get to the point where we may have peace in that region. We may establish a humanitarian regime for people in which to live.

I would suggest to the member that he would have to agree. Whether or not, as his party seems to be saying in the House tonight, Canadians should be involved, would he intellectually say nobody should be involved? Would he say the United States should not be involved or the Europeans should not be involved? In fact the view of his party is that it would be best if everybody stood back and let this whole thing just blow up. Should we let the Albanians and the Serbs go to war with one another, spilling over into other regions, spilling over into Bosnia where we have our own troops that would be at risk?

I took it from the position of his party in the House tonight that I do not think he would go that far. I think he would say some force is necessary but let it not be us that provides the force, which I do not think is an appropriate response in these circumstances.

As for votes in the House in take note debates, I cannot speak to that. That is an agreement the leaders of the House have taken over the years. It may well be that at some point a vote in the House would be appropriate for these debates. At the moment these are called take note debates. They give an opportunity for the members to share views as we are able to do tonight in a way that is helpful to the government to understand issues without necessarily requiring a vote.

As for our party, which he says should be giving a briefing to his party, I do not know whether his party would really want to have a briefing from our party. If that is what he would like, I am sure I would be willing to share with him the views of the minister if he had attended the foreign affairs committee meeting this afternoon where the minister came before the committee and was with us over two hours.

We discussed this issue and the government has always tried to make documents and information available to every member of the House. Every one of us would like to have more information. I share with him the desire to have more information, but I do not think we can say that the government side or the government as such is keeping information from members of the House. I wish that he had had an opportunity to be with us. His colleagues were there in the foreign affairs committee this afternoon where we had a discussion of this matter with the foreign minister. Finally, what are the diplomatic initiatives which Canada has taken? Canada takes an active role in the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an organization which has been directly involved in the Kosovo issue. It is perhaps the most significant organization involved in Kosovo. Canada has played an important role in the OSCE. I know from my own work there that there are many European and other governments which would like to see Canada play an even larger role. But we are not a European country.

We are a North American country. We have limited resources. But within those resources we play a very important role and we have provided observers in Kosovo. We have provided police in Kosovo. In the course of dealing with this situation we have provided an enormous amount of energy on behalf of the department and on behalf of the minister to try to bring the sides together, to persuade the KLA, the armed wing of the Kosovars, to moderate their demands and to persuade the Serbian government of Mr. Milosevic to behave in a civilized way in a part of a country where they are supposed to be managing their own citizens and not treat it as an occupying army.

We have been active in that and I am surprised to hear the member suggest that we have not, because what is curious is that when we do get active in these files we get criticized for spending our time and energy on them, and our money on them, from the party on the other side which does not wish to spend any money, but then when nothing is done it says to us we are doing nothing.

A great deal is being done by this government in working on this file. A great deal has been done by our ambassador at the OSCE. A great deal is being done by all our diplomatic corps in supporting our NATO allies and other in the Rambouillet process and I am surprised that the member would seek to use this partisan moment to criticize what we are trying to do in this very important matter.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate this evening, however late the hour, to share with members of the House some thoughts on this important issue. I do not believe the last member who spoke bothered to address the second aspect of this question, whether we should continue our troop presence in the Central African Republic.

This debate is to deal with two things, whether we should retain our troops in the Central African Republic and whether we should make our troops available in the event, and only in the event, they are needed for an operation in Kosovo. I would like to address those two items.

The first item is dealt with more simply. It is a smaller number of troops, some 65 or 75 troops, who are in a communications position in the Central African Republic.

It is important to speak to this because it shows the type of commitment that Canada and our armed services are making toward peacekeeping in the world. We need to keep our troops in the Central African Republic.

There is an election to be held there shortly. We have responsibilities as a member of the security council to ensure peace and security in the world. We have chosen to be on the security council. We must accept the responsibilities that go with that post.

It seems to me that Canadians and our armed services as well would be anxious to serve and to continue to serve in the Central African Republic to ensure that an election will be held there in a way that will guarantee establishment of a free and democratic country there. It is one of the best things we are doing in the world today where we are able to provide to the world some of the finest people in terms of peacekeeping.

They are some of the finest examples of men and women who are able to work in different communities and difficult situations in order to bring their expertise, particularly in that area which requires bilingual expertise which is the perfect example of what we have in our services, and make it work in a way which will ensure peace in that African country.

It would be a tragedy if the official opposition were to have its way and, for the reasons given by the last speaker in talking about the inability of us to survive and provide the services necessary to keep those troops there, we were to withdraw from that essential function.

Of far greater import is the debate over the issue of whether we should be prepared to stand and commit troops to Kosovo.

I will share with the Canadian public and members of the House an experience which I had in January this year which makes me believe it is not only our duty and obligation but it is common sense for us to make available our forces for that operation.

I will address at the end of my comments the observations of the hon. member who preceded me that we do not have the capacity to make the commitment I would ask our troops to make.

I happened to be in Vienna at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in January this year. A group of us came together. The chairman of the Russian Duma, a member of the U.S. Congress, a French member of parliament, I and other members of parliaments from around the world. We crafted a resolution on Kosovo in which we sought to bring both sides together. We criticized both sides for their excesses and asked that both sides come together to achieve a peaceful solution to the dispute there.

As we were leaving Vienna 45 innocent Kosovar civilians were taken out by the Serbian police in charge of that country and shot point blank, massacred. I realized then that all the talk, all the words in all the parliaments of the world in the end cannot change a situation if we are not willing to back up at some point our words with some force and some action.

That is where we are at tonight. That is what we have to determine in this House. Are we, as representatives of the Canadian people, willing to commit our troops, part of ourselves, to the process of trying to bring peace to Kosovo?

We would not be where we are in the process of trying to bring peace to that region if Mr. Milosevic had not been told that there will be an employment of force. We need the presence of troops. We need the threat of troops to kickstart the Rambouillet process. That is now working. We need the presence of troops ultimately to ensure that process will work.

We have seen before Mr. Milosevic and his lack of respect of international engagements. Nothing short of the presence of an enforceable mechanism to make sure that he will adhere to his responsibilities, if he enters into a political arrangement, will make any sense in that arena. We have learned that through bitter experience in the Bosnian theatre and we are learning that today in Kosovo.

Are Canadian troops needed for that? The Reform Party may well take the position that everything I have said is correct but that there should not be Canadian troops there. It is true that we need a larger presence of European troops. This is a European problem and Europeans should be in a position to deal with these issues themselves.

However, there are two features we must bear in mind. We as Canadians have a specific responsibility in peacekeeping because we have contributed to the United Nations role in peacekeeping and we have made a specific and an enormous worldwide contribution to that area. When we look at the contribution we have made in Bosnia we recognize that this is exactly where Canadians can make a difference.

I believe that a force in Kosovo will not be able to make the difference that it makes with Canadian troops there. I have had the opportunity and privilege to visit our troops in Bosnia. Our troops are serving there with great pride, with enormous professionalism and with great expertise. With all deference to the member who spoke before me, they are doing so knowing they are equipped to do their job, are able to do their job, are trained to do their job and are proud to do their job. The Canadian people are proud of the job they are doing there.

Canadian troops will make a difference in the event that troops are required in Kosovo. I urge our government to ensure, if and when the call is made under the UN mandate and through a NATO operation to provide troops to make sure that peace will come in Kosovo so normal men and women can survive and live decent lives without being threatened with arbitrary execution or being expelled from their homes, that we will be standing with our allies and with, I hope, as in Bosnia, not only NATO allies but Russian troops and troops from other parts of the world who will join us to try to bring peace to this troubled region.

I have participated in many of these debates on similar subjects about whether we should commit our forces to the betterment of humanity and to the advancement of the Canadian goals of tolerance and of making a better world. In each one of these debates the Reform Party has taken the same position: “Oh, yes, we think this is a good idea but we are not equipped. We should not be there. Our men and women should not be exposed to this because they are not equipped”.

Do Reform Party members go and talk to our men and women? Have they been to Bosnia as we have and talked to them? Have they consulted our troops? The last member was honest enough to constantly say “I know that our troops would like to do this but we do not think they should do it”. He is a greater expert in the knowledge and understanding of what our troops are able to do and what they would like to do than themselves.

Let him consult our troops or, even better, let him and his colleagues come with me and my colleagues to meetings of the OSCE general assembly, for example, in which the Reform Party refuses to participate. They will not come and talk to colleagues from Albania, Kosovo, Russia and other countries. They do not believe in that. No, they do not deign to travel. It is not worthy of them to be involved in debates with the other members of the world community so that they could have a better understanding of what is taking place.

They were not there in Copenhagen where you and I were, Mr. Speaker, when we debated the Kosovo issue this year in the OSCE parliamentary assembly. There was no Reform Party member there because they chose not to come. They do not wish to be associated with discussions of these issues. They do not wish to taint their debate in this House with any sense of knowledge or understanding of these issues. They choose to sit here wrapped in a blanket of ignorance that enables them to take the position they are taking in the House tonight. I think that is most unfortunate.

Let them come out of that eggshell they are in. Let them come with us, meet the people, come to the OSCE this summer, come to St. Petersburg, meet colleagues from other parliaments around the world, get an understanding of the problems that other people have to deal with, and we will be able to deal with those together as we could as Canadians, as our troops will be dealing with when they are there on the ground with their Canadian values and their Canadian sense of how to make things work for a better world and for better conditions for people to live in.

I read with great interest an article which the member of parliament for Red Deer, who is the spokesperson for the Reform Party, wrote in the

National Post

recently in which he accused the government of a failure of being willing to take a strong stand on issues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, he wrote, “is interested in soft power, will do nothing, is cowardly, cavilling, unwilling to take a stand”. The world in his view was a Manichaean one, one of darkness and of light, and we in the Liberal Party were unwilling to ever take a stand on these issues.

Where are we tonight in this debate when members of the Reform Party faced with a true, articulated and clear issue of darkness are unwilling to take a stand? They are the ones who are unwilling to deal with this. They are the ones that are of soft power because they are soft on understanding the nature of the way in which the world operates. They will not participate in it in a way which enables them to be a real player.

I would like to leave members of the House with this thought. If we as Canadians are to play the role in the security council, which we have just accepted this year for the next two years, the best thing we can do is contribute to the peacekeeping conditions in which the United Nations and in which other international institutions are able to keep the peace. If we do not contain situations such as Kosovo and situations such as prevail in the Central African Republic, conditions will prevail in the world which will in turn come and overwhelm us in this country.

It is for that reason we must go forward in this debate. It is that reason we must adopt the position of enabling our troops to be available in the sense of availing the world community of a chance to make peace for the sake of the people who live in Kosovo, all the people of Europe, and ultimately the people of the world if we are to have a better life for all of us.

[Drug Trafficking, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa has returned from South America where he was attending discussions on how to control drug trafficking. I understand he narrowly missed an earthquake on which I congratulate him.

Could he please tell the House what these meetings accomplished to build international support to deal with this issue which is of such great importance to Canadians?

[Committees Of The House, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, titled Canada and Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century .

This is an important report by our committee. It reflects the opinion of Canadians, some 95% of whom believe the government and parliament should be supporting the reductions of nuclear arms throughout the world.

Throughout the course of our study, the committee consulted with Canadians from every walk of life and experts in Canada and abroad.

The conclusions in the report clearly reflect what the committee heard from those Canadians and experts. Four parties concur in the report's conclusions, demonstrating their willingness to co-operate, to submerge their differences to achieve consensus in an area of great concern to Canadians and of great importance to humanity.

Yesterday I would have presented this report with joy, with the knowledge of its significance. Today I report it with a great sense of sadness for the absence in this House.

I finish with a quote from Shakespeare which in my view sums up the life of Shaughnessy Cohen. Shakespeare said of Juliet “And summer's lease hath all too short a date”.