Bill Graham

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will leave aside the rather large philosophical question as to the way in which this House and we as members go about ratifying and approving international treaties. This clearly is something of interest to a lot of members. It comes up in the foreign affairs and international trade committee from time to time, and it may be something we should be looking at.

I am a little surprised at the tone of opposition the member expressed and particularly his suggestion that we should be adopting mirror legislation vis-à-vis the United States.

The member will recall that the committee held extensive hearings on this bill. We often heard recommendations from various parties, particularly the steel industry and others, saying that we should adopt mirror legislation vis-à-vis the United States. However, it was pointed out by a lot of people who came before the committee that this would also hurt the Canadian automotive industry which imports a lot of parts that are then used in exports.

I would suggest to the member that I am not so sure we would want to go down the track of imitating what the United States does.

What we are trying to tell everybody in the United States and the world is that their ideas are crazy, do not make sense and are contrary to the international agreements we are subscribing to. Why would we want to do what they do just to prove that we agree that what they are doing is crazy? I do not understand where the member is coming from on this.

I think I understood that his party is in favour of the general thrust of the legislation and that maybe we can work on it together. However, the recommendations in this legislation have all-party support of the committee which recommended most of the changes. The legislation itself brings Canada into conformity with our international agreements and at the same time protects our producers and our consumers in a proper balanced way.

[Privilege, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the business of the House in this debate to introduce a question of privilege, but I understand that this is an appropriate time to do so and I crave the indulgence of yourself and the House.

My question of privilege arises out of something which occurred this morning. It arises out of the publication of an article in the National Post newspaper by a reporter by the name of Mike Trickey in which he published, verbatim, parts of a draft report presently being considered by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I would like to make a few preliminary comments about this publication prior to going into exactly why this is a question of privilege.

The first comment I would like to make is that the National Post seems to have a completely contemptuous disregard for the process of this House, which was clear from an editorial published last week. They seemed to totally misunderstand what is going on in our committee.

Apart from that, I was asked as chairman of the committee, by every one of the members of our committee who were there this morning, to raise this matter with you, Madam Speaker, and with our colleagues in the House.

Like all committees, we require that when we are doing our work and when we are operating in camera that that work be kept private. I will come back to citation 57 of Beauchesne's which speaks of the work of parliament in camera.

Madam Speaker, you know and members of the House know how hard we work in committee to arrive at what is best for Canadian citizens. That is where we discuss these issues.

This is a matter of national and international importance. The publication of this article, which takes out of context parts of this report, which was not a report but only a draft for consideration by members of the committee, intimates that conclusions have been made by the committee which have not yet been made in any way. It intimates that we are going in directions. The article leads us to believe that we are threatening our relations with the United States of America, one of our closest allies. It threatens the very nature of our Canadian politics.

The article is wrong in the sense that it pretends this is a report, when in fact it is a draft. It leads to conclusions which will interfere with the ability of members of our committee to conduct their hearings in a way which will enable us to come to a report which will be of benefit to this parliament, to the people of Canada and ultimately to the international community.

For all of those reasons I was asked if I would rise on this point. The members of our committee work hard. The members of our committee are determined to ensure that the House will have the benefit of their deliberations. They are all searching for the best solution for Canadians, from all parts of the House. The publication of a committee's proceedings prior to its conclusions and the release of a draft report is, in my view, a violation of the privileges not only of myself as the chair, but of every member of that committee and every member of this House.

How will we now come to an agreement on this draft when it has been released to the press? What do these people really care, except for getting some sort of a scoop? This is a question of the integrity of the parliamentary process. There is the integrity of the committee process that we as members of the House must consider.

We have a systemic problem. This is, I understand, a continuing practice. Every single report that has been discussed in committee so far this year has been released or leaked by someone to the press. It is reducing the committee process to a virtual impossibility. We will not be capable of discussing our reports if we cannot conduct our discussions in a way which will enable us to craft those essential compromises and those essential understandings which make the House work, which make democracy work and which make the committee system work.

Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider this matter. I would suggest that if it continues and is allowed to continue it will destroy the efficacy of the committee system which is the very underpinning of the democratic principles on which the House survives. This House will not survive if we as members cannot deliberate amongst ourselves and arrive at conclusions without someone leaking confidential materials and pretending or suggesting that those are the conclusions of the committee which have not yet been reached.

I suggest this raises a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It is a breach of my privilege as the committee chairman. It is a breach of the privilege of every member of our committee. Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider it as being a breach of the privilege of every single member of this House. It is happening with rapidity and it is going to destroy the way in which we function. It is a breach of privilege by the source who leaked the report. It is breach of privilege by the person who published it. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to consider this question.

[Committees Of The House, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

Your committee has considered this bill and agreed to report it without amendment. In September 1996 a subcommittee of each of the standing committees on foreign affairs and international trade and finance initiated at the request of the Minister of Finance a joint study on the Special Import Measures Act. Their report, presented in December of that year, concluded that while the SIMA responded adequately to the Canadian business community's expectations, some improvements could be made. Their recommendations were received by the government favourably and virtually all were incorporated into this bill.

I take the opportunity to thank the many witnesses who participated in the SIMA review, the members of the subcommittees for their contribution to these amendments and the minister and his officials for their careful consideration of the subcommittee representations.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House of Commons, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the seventh annual meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from July 7 to 10, 1998.

This report contains resolutions concerning Kosovo, the economic charter of the OSCE and the support of OSCE missions in various unstable or emerging democracies. After active debate and the participation of many members of our delegation, many of whom are in the House today, we can say that this meeting provided an opportunity for Canadian parliamentarians to meet representatives from European and Eastern European countries, to make important contacts and exchange views that will be of value to all Canadians, and to contribute to the development of human rights in an important part of the world.

[Trade, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. In October 1997 the Prime Minister expressed an interest in extending our free trade arrangements to include the four countries that belonged to the European Free Trade Association.

Would the minister please advise the House of the status of those negotiations?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the knowledgeable intervention of the member for Calgary Northeast as the defence critic for the Reform Party.

We have had the opportunity of travelling together in Bosnia and looking at these issues. He is very knowledgeable but perhaps he will permit me if I say to him that it looks to me as if he is trying to have the best of both worlds in this debate.

He says that he lends qualified support to the action of participating, but then sets out a series of conditions which enables him to say if there is a problem “See, I told you so. Yes, let us do it but here are the problems and if it does not work out the way we would like it to, we will be able to stand up and say we told you so”.

I think the member has more depth to him than that. I have watched him and I would like his answer to my question. I appreciate all the questions he raised are appropriate questions for us to ask, particularly concerning escalation in neighbouring regions, the true nature of what we will have and Canada's facilities.

We have looked at what we have at the base at Aviano. We all recognize that our facilities are stretched to the limit.

We have asked a great deal of our troops. Some of us have had an opportunity to see the professional qualities that they have developed in Bosnia and the tremendous professionalism they exhibit in the way in which they operate around the world. Whether it is in Haiti or Bosnia or the many other jurisdictions, we know what wonderful performers they are. We cannot ask too much of them. All of that is true.

The member knows that NATO has been looking at this situation for over six months. He knows how NATO operates. He knows that NATO has some of the most professional people, Americans, British, French, the top people in the world. They have been looking at this for six months. Does he not believe that the NATO planners are looking at the questions that he is asking in the House tonight? Does he not believe that the NATO planners have the capacity to resolve those issues?

Does he not believe that what we need in the House tonight is a commitment to act and act forcefully if we are going to resolve the questions in the area. At the same time does he not believe that we need to have confidence that the NATO planners, our NATO colleagues and our own troops are able to address the logistical questions which he asked in the House tonight?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford for her very thoughtful and sensitive appreciation of the situation.

I think she has introduced into the debate tonight an element that we really have not heard from a lot of other members, which is the need for reconciliation, because, as we know, violence begets violence.

While it is clear that the United Nations has indicated that the majority of responsibility lies with the Yugoslav government since it has the force of power, there is another party in that conflict, the Kosovo Liberation Army.

The KLA, while in no way bearing the same level of responsibility, has a responsibility, which is to return to the bargaining table and ensure that civil peace is restored.

When one seeks to destroy a state or a society violence comes with it. It is a lesson in this country that we have to bear in mind ourselves. This is a lesson for all societies and I think the member brought that to our attention.

Does the member feel there is some way that Canadians can help the Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovars themselves to understand the way in which they could live in an autonomous region within a federal state, the way we have managed to achieve in our own society, where we deal with these problems in a peaceful, civil way? Is there something we should be urging our government to do, whether it is through CIDA or another organization, to take to these countries a lesson from Canada, a lesson from our own federal experience which will enable them to do exactly what the member suggested? A peaceful reconciliation is ultimately required on both sides if we are going to achieve a resolution of this terrible humanitarian problem.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow that up with the parliamentary secretary.

I recall when the minister was speaking the parliamentary secretary was here as well. He pointed out that the secretary general's report in respect of the situation in Kosovo had clearly indicated that the conditions which security council mandated for an improvement in the situation in Kosovo have not been lived up to.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that if perhaps there is not a formal resolution at least it is clear that within the United Nations situation itself there is a clear opportunity for NATO and Canada to say we must take advantage of this situation and deal with it and that the secretary-general, by his findings, has indicated that the situation for an imperative intervention is there? Would that be a fair way of putting it?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as usual, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a way of being able to put the challenge right on the table. I cannot pick up that challenge in every respect, but I can certainly say that I will take the issues he has referred to, to the steering committee of the foreign affairs committee, particularly a recommendation for the indictment of Mr. Milosevic. His party is represented excellently by the member for Red Deer and the member himself is an associate member of our committee.

I had the opportunity on the weekend to meet with Madam Arbour, our representative in Brussels. She is doing a wonderful job as a Canadian representative on the War Crimes Tribunal. We will raise that issue with her. We have seen Canadians rally together around such issues. We saw the tremendous support for Canada from other nations on the land mines issue. There is an opportunity to bring like-minded countries together.

I believe the member will give credit to the foreign affairs minister who has been very active on these files. Our foreign affairs minister is not a quiet person. He is an activist as we know from the land mines debate. I can be confident that he is doing everything to deal with the situation and to bring like-minded states together.

The parliamentary secretary is in the House tonight and will be speaking to the motion. He is also active on this file and is trying to deal with like-minded nations. I am sure that he will be able to speak to this issue when he rises shortly.

In our committee we will do our best to respond to all the suggestions of the member, largely because this is an issue which is bringing us together. We can work together in an all party way to try to resolve a humanitarian issue. Canadians can bring a special quality to bear on this debate on the world stage. I thank the member for his questions.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important debate this evening.

It is important to recognize the tremendous unanimity of views in the House tonight, faced as we are and watching as we do the tremendous destruction and the devastation of the livelihood of innocent people who live in Kosovo. We have now been watching this for more than a year.

The humanitarian situation in Kosovo is disastrous with hundreds of thousands of displaced people and refugees, some of whom lack basic shelter and basic necessity.

What is the most shocking is that many of the problems are the direct result of the due actions of the Yugoslav government which itself is charged with the basic responsibility of its own people, its own citizens in that area. It is clear we are watching the war of a government on its own citizens, determined to drive them into the country, determined to drive them into the ground.

The situation of violence and oppression is creating a humanitarian situation of enormous proportions. Some 290,000 people have been displaced as a result of the conflict in Kosovo. I come from a city of 3.5 million people. If we had 300,000 people displaced in the city of Toronto, imagine how we would cope with that tremendous problem. We are having problems coping with homelessness, with disease and with other issues within our own communities now. How would we cope with the enormity of that disaster?

For those who go back to the Quebec ice storm, think of what it would be in terms of humanitarian tragedy if the people the ice storm struck had nowhere to go, nowhere to return, and were going back to bombed houses, totally destroyed places. This is the type of life that the people in Kosovo are living at the behest of their own government. This is the terrifying aspect. Winter approaches. Some 50,000 people, children and elderly, are without shelter and afraid to return to the remains of their homes.

We watch the situation on television. We read about it in the newspapers but we have little firsthand experience. This evening in the House we heard from the Reform member for Red Deer. He spoke of when he travelled to Bosnia. I can echo that. We have some experience with it, as does the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence. We travelled to Bosnia. We have been there. We have seen devastation in those areas. The same is now taking place in Kosovo.

There is a difference between what is taking place in Kosovo today and what is taking place in Bosnia today. That difference is the fact that in Bosnia some years ago NATO chose to act. We acted with efficiency. We finally were pushed into the situation where we had to do something. We did it. Today, while we have to live with the tremendous situation the member for Red Deer described, to some extent we are seeing a situation where peace, security and civil society are returning. Farmers can till their fields. Children can play. Birds can sing again. There is a chance for life, which does not exist in Kosovo.

Why is there that difference? The difference is, as the minister pointed out in his opening statement, the Yugoslav authorities have a plan to terrorize their own population. That plan is succeeding for one reason and one reason only. It is that there is no credible threat from the international community that will stop them.

Stopping them with resolutions was proven in the Bosnia situation not to be successful. Words are good in parliaments. They are a part of our work. However words will not deal with Slobodan Milosevic. We learned that in Bosnia. He will only be stopped by actions. That was our experience. There is no reason it would not apply here as it applied in Bosnia.

The need to act is clear. All members in the House that I heard speak tonight have echoed that. How to act, however, is less clear. There will be debate and there will be reasonable discussions about how we should act. We know, as the member from Esquimalt and many others have pointed out, that NATO has the capacity to act. The question we must ask ourselves is a reasonable one. What is the legal authority by which NATO will act? If we act without legal authority that is an issue.

I had the privilege of attending the debates of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in Copenhagen this summer. We debated a resolution on Kosovo. A strong debate took place between those of us who wanted to ensure there would be a capacity to act and those who were more determined that whatever action would be taken would be taken under legal authority.

Eventually the OSCE adopted a resolution which provided that military measures should be taken in Kosovo with the explicit endorsement of a relevant UN security council resolution.

I opposed that aspect of the resolution when it came up in the OSCE assembly. I would oppose the same approach we are taking tonight. The foreign minister addressed the reason in his remarks. If we depend upon a clear security council resolution with Russian and Chinese approval, there is a serious chance it just will not happen.

The member for Red Deer put that in context tonight. We have to look at that as members of parliament who believe in a world society which is governed more and more by the rule of law. The very humanitarian principles we seek to apply tonight are those that create the sense of the world law to which we want to adhere if we are to have a rule of law we can all live within. It would be similar to the rule of law those of us in the House adhere to, wish to adhere to, and wish to build in a world community in the same way we have in our wonderful Canadian society. We must be aware of that.

While the security council resolution is important and may put the UN authority in jeopardy if we act without it, we have to face the fact that if we allow the UN security council issue to prevent us from acting the UN will lose its authority in the world. It will be eroded to such a point that it will become irrelevant for all of us.

I believe my view echoes that of most members who have spoken tonight. We must prepare to act. It must be a preparation that is credible and determined. It is only this credible and determined action and the ability to deliver it that will provide the Yugoslav authorities with a reason to back down. Only that will bring them to the table. Only that will force them to act. If not, we will see this situation drag on. We will see problems develop in the region that will be worse than those if we do not act.

I met with the Macedonian ambassador today. He told me not to be hasty in this matter. He said that they would be ineffective if precipitous NATO action was taken. I asked him what would happen if this situation were to drag on for another year, what would happen to the communities and societies living on the border of this untenable situation.

That is what the situation will be. It will drag on for years. We will not see 200,000 refugees; we will see 400,000 refugees. Inevitably people will be dragged into the situation. If we do not act now, the worst thing that will happen is that we will have to act a year from now when thousands of lives will have been lost and the situation will be much worse. It is always that way. We are forced to act.

We must deal with Russia's reaction, with Turkey and with Greece. All of this is true. The risk of not acting is worse than the threat of acting. We must act if we are to preserve the moral authority of our situation in a world where we must preserve humanitarian rights in the face of the determination of states to deny rights to their own citizens.

I read a little history as I prepared for my speech tonight. Count Bismarck who subsequently became Prince Bismarck, the chancellor of the German Empire as it was then, said in 1890 “If there is another war in Europe it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans”. This is not a damned silly thing we are talking about tonight. This is a human tragedy. We are on the threshold of the 21st century and nothing has changed.

We owe it to ourselves to act as parliamentarians and as citizens of the world to make a change. Let us pledge in the House tonight that we will act together to make a change. Let us pledge that we will keep the spirit of the House tonight in which all members are saying that we must act. Let us encourage our government to be positive, to act and to end the humanitarian tragedy that we are facing. If we do not act today we will act in the future and it will be worse.