Bill Graham

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and debate the issue today, although it obviously is a matter which concerns our colleagues in the Atlantic provinces more than the rest of Canada directly. In fact, it concerns all of us in Canada. What we have here in this proposition is a superior model for dealing with the problem of consumption taxes throughout Canada.

We have heard the member from the Bloc, the previous speaker from the province of Quebec. We know that Quebec has harmonized its tax system for obvious reasons. I will return to that.

The fact of the matter is this government has spent the last three years struggling with the problem of how to have the intelligent application of a consumption tax in the country. Every tax expert, anybody who knows anything about the way modern taxes work in a modern society, particularly one which is subject to globalization, knows very well that there is a proper mix of income taxes and consumption taxes that must be applied.

Why did we end up where we did with the GST, which we in the House have spent so much time talking about? We as citizens and members of Parliament have been trying to deal with the unfortunate hand that was dealt us by the last government.

The reason the GST was brought in was that the former manufacturers' sales tax which applied to manufactured goods in the country was no longer sustainable once tariffs were moved down to what they were after the war when originally they were around 50 per cent and then dropped to an average tariff today of 7 per cent. The manufacturers' sales tax only applied to goods which were manufactured in Canada. The consequence of applying that in today's world would have been totally impossible. It would have inhibited manufacturing in Canada and given benefits to imports. Of course we had to move to a consumption tax which could be applied at the level which would hit imports the same as domestically manufactured products. That is why a consumption tax must be regarded as a tool of any modern economy.

When we ran for the Liberal Party in the last election, we spoke of the need to deal with the problems of the GST. We spoke of the need to harmonize it. We spoke of the need to deal with the inequities in the system. We spoke of that in the last election in spite of what the member opposite has been crying out, saying "election promises". That was the election promise of the government, to deal with the serious problems that were inherent in the tax. That is what we have sought to do since we were elected.

[Microcredit, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Microcredit has been one of the most successful development strategies of this century.

Twenty years ago Dr. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and began to lend small amounts of money to those who had never been considered acceptable credit risks before, mainly impoverished rural women. These women invested the loans with spectacular returns, thus benefiting all members of their families and the economic health of their country.

Microcredit is now included in development projects worldwide, in developed countries as well as poor ones.

The Calmeadow Foundation in Toronto is a pioneer in Microcredit in this country, making small loans available to the inner city poor and to aboriginal groups throughout Canada.

Today in Washington two of our colleagues joined delegates from 36 countries to promote the use of Microcredit worldwide.

We should join together in wishing them the best of luck in this endeavour, which is so crucial to the future of so many people around the world.

[St. Michael's Choir School, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the visit to the House of Commons of the world famous St. Michael's Choir School.

The school, situated in Rosedale riding in Toronto, was founded in 1937 by Monsignor Ronan to provide a choir for the liturgical services of St. Michael's Cathedral. Since its modest beginning the school has grown to 374 students, some of whom are with us today. It is now recognized as the most famous choir school in Canada.

The enthusiasm and joy of the choir school performers, which we were privileged to share in this House today, bring great pleasure to their audiences and speak clearly of the commitment to excellence that is the St. Michael's Choir School tradition.

Each year the choir goes on two tours which take the boys across North America and Europe. This spring the choir will return to Europe with a two week tour of Italy.

Mr. Speaker, having heard them sing in the House, I am sure you will agree with me that Canada could not ask for better ambassadors than the fine young men of St. Michael's Choir School.

We wish them good luck and bon voyage.

[Women's College Hospital, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of Women's College Hospital located in my riding of Rosedale.

For over 80 years Women's College Hospital has been dedicated to the advancing concerns of women's health in an atmosphere unlike any other hospital. It has enabled us to craft some innovative responses to women's health concerns that have received global recognition.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the health of women in all countries, particularly in the developing world, is of extreme importance since women are largely responsible for the education, health and safety of children and the overall management of the family.

For this reason, Women's College Hospital has been very active in the worldwide promotion of women's health. In fact, the World Health Organization is currently considering an application submitted by the hospital for it to become one of the World Health Organization's collaborating centres.

I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting this application and in wishing Women's College Hospital continued success.

[Canadian Census, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I had the opportunity to question the Minister for International Trade on the signing of the free trade agreement between Chile and Canada, he situated this agreement to some extent within the context of Canada's general international trade in his response.

I think we must look at this agreement in the context of what we are doing in Canada to diversify our trade with the United States and to find new markets, especially markets opening up in the Asia-Pacific region and in Latin America. In this context, it seems to me that Chile is very important, because it is now associated with Mercasur, an association of four Latin American countries: Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil.

If we really intend to create a free trade zone in the Americas by 2005, as stated in Miami a year ago, we must remember that there is a lot of work to be done in terms of international trade and the signing of agreements like the one we have with Chile.

In that context I would like to pursue my question of the minister. In his answer to my question, he specifically said that he perceived that the additional advantage this agreement would bring to this country would be in the areas of investment, tariff reduction and perhaps serving as a model whereby the United States would be brought into this process.

Clearly tariff reduction is there. That is a factor in every agreement of this nature, so let us leave that aside and speak for a moment on both the investment issue and the American issue. I would like to ask additional questions of the parliamentary secretary.

How do we see Chile in terms of its investment regulations? My understanding is that when the tesobonos problems arose with Mexico it shook the very foundations of the financial markets of Latin America. Chile was one country which survived that experience precisely because it had in place investment controls which were more strict than those of other Latin American countries. Mexico in fact collapsed and then Argentina very nearly collapsed on top of it, but Chile survived.

Surely it would seem to me that when we enter into an agreement with Chile that we would want to reinforce and enable that type of arrangement to be in place. We would be a part of it and we would relate that to the International Monetary Fund and other monetary policies. That is certainly an issue which I think is preoccupying for many of us when we look at this agreement.

Perhaps more preoccupying is the role of the United States in this. It is clear that it would be beneficial to bring the United States into this agreement. It is clear that if free trade of the Americas is going to be realized by the year 2005, an essential first step is to bring in the United States.

Will the United States be brought in with environmental and labour standards side agreements such as those we have insisted on in NAFTA? My understanding is that the present political climate in Washington is that an ever increasingly conservative Congress will resist a great deal any suggestion by the administration that we should have side agreements of this nature attached to the Chile agreement.

It seems to me that if ultimately Chile is going to be a part of NAFTA, then we have to incorporate into its arrangements with us these very important agreements because we are all concerned with the problem of the harmonization of standards.

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I would like to go back to the point that the hon. member for Red Deer often makes about the requirement for a set period of time for these missions. I have heard the member refer to that in our committee and I respect the member's opinion on these issues a great deal.

The hon. member also made a very valid point in saying these are shifting times. One of the things you have to have in these circumstances is a certain amount of flexibility, as we have seen in the United States. In Bosnia we set a time for a certain period of time and we are willing to stay for another year. One does not say we are willing to stay for a longer period of time because the mission is a total failure. One is staying because the mission is a success and it is important that we give the flexibility to be able to stay.

I think where this mission will be different from other missions is that there will be a clear ability to say when this mission has been successful when in fact the majority of the population has been able to move out of Zaire back into Rwanda, and in circumstances where it can be settled in Rwanda and the militia in Zaire is not able to harass the population or prevent it from returning to its homes. That is a very much more settled form of a framework it seems to me of a problem, and one which can reasonably be dealt with in a short period of time than the much more complicated case of re-establishing a civil society in a country like the former Yugoslavia. But that is not to say that the establishment of a civil society in Rwanda will not be an important issue for ensuring that this type of situation does not repeat itself in the future.

In that area I would suggest that there is where we again as Canadians have very responsible programs in place. We have the Canadian International Development Agency. One of the things we are doing in Rwanda is financing a reinvigoration of its justice system. We are trying to give its people and help them develop themselves the basis of a civil society. It is clearly not something which we can do for them. That would be another form of new colonialism. It is something that we have to enable them to do through help in education, by providing to them judicial instruction and other instruments that Canadian society values and enabling them to choose for themselves and apply it. I personally am not one of those who believes that after the end of this mission there will be the possibility of an eruption of civil violence in the communities of Rwanda. There is a civil authority in Rwanda. It needs beefing up. It can be made better and we can help them in doing that.

That will not require troops. That will not require the continuation of this mission. It will require continued Canadian aid. I am glad to hear from the government that it intends to do that.

Third, let me say that the member points out the reduction in the defence budget. I will not dwell long on the seeming inconsistency in his position on this, given the fact that his party has strongly advocated greater reductions in government expenditures.

It is true we have had to reduce the defence budget. We have reduced the aid budget. We have reduced the budgets of every department in the country. I believe we are reducing them responsibly. We have reduced them in a way that enables our military to come to us and say: "Yes, we can do this mission. Yes, we have the capacity to do it properly". That is why I am willing to support it today.

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the government's initiative to enter into the Rwanda crisis and the Zaire crisis in such a positive and constructive manner.

We heard the Prime Minister's statement in the House today. From that we clearly understood the background to the taking of this initiative. We also understood that this initiative is being taken in circumstances of the utmost responsibility and of the utmost gravity, both with respect to the nature of the situation and the remedies that are being called upon to address it.

We are told that this will be a multilateral force commanded by Canadians. We are told that it is supported by a United Nations resolution. We are told that it falls under article 7 of the United Nations charter, which gives the largest possible mandate to those forces intervening in Rwanda to act in a way which will ensure the success of their mission.

We are told that there are clear rules of engagement and clear rules of command. Even the Americans, who are often hesitant to be involved in this type of situation, have accepted that this is the

type of situation in which they must participate, and participate in collaboration with our Canadian forces.

We are told that there will be no action without the security of understanding the reaction of the countries involved on the ground.

It seems to me, therefore, when we consider the situation in the House today that the questions we must ask ourselves are is it in Canada's interest to undertake this mission? Has the changed situation on the ground made the whole idea irrelevant? Do we have the resources, both human and materiel, to accomplish this undertaking?

In speaking of Canada's interest, or our interest in Canadians undertaking this mission, I first would like to dwell on the Prime Minister's comments about the humanitarian background for this mission. It seems to me that we, as Canadians, who are fortunate enough to live in this country, recognize the nature of the interdependent world in which we live. We owe it to ourselves to recognize the need to act in circumstances which require a humanitarian response to tragedies of the magnitude and of the type which we are facing.

I can remember some time ago in my riding of Rosedale speaking to some young Rwandan refugees who had come to Canada. They were living in Montreal but they had come down to speak to some disadvantaged youths in Rosedale. We were working together on a common project. We had young people working together under a group called the Environmental Video Exchange. These youths were putting together a very interesting international community response to a lot of our international problems. The interaction of these youth from Rwanda with our own young men and women in Rosedale was very instructive. It was very clear from talking to them that if they were here in the House today they would be reacting much like the majority of the members of the House. That is to say, they would be supporting the government in this initiative.

Canadians at every level, in every walk of life, I believe sincerely want to be of constructive help in circumstances where they are able to do so.

I strongly believe, from having listened to the Prime Minister today and the minister's statements and having had an opportunity to review with some of the officials the circumstances of this mission, that this is an appropriate time to do exactly what the immediate initial response of the Canadians would be, which would be to stand up and say "let us take this, let us run with it and let us make it count in the world".

I listened with great pride to what the Prime Minister said about the reaction of the international community and the reaction he received from around the world, from small nations, great nations and the United Nations.

I had the opportunity to travel to Europe last week with a group of other members of Parliament from all parties. We happened to be in Germany and had breakfast with a group of German parliamentarians, members of their defence committee. They told us: "Do you know what our television is telling us here in Germany? Canada is doing what we in Europe should be doing. Canada is taking the lead in a way that we should be taking the lead and are not able to take the lead". Perhaps it is for the reason the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech that there were problems with the Europeans because of a colonial past or otherwise.

However, the fact of the matter is people in other countries are seeing that this country is willing to take the lead in a humanitarian response but also in another manner that is very important to us in terms of our vital strategic interest in this country. We are taking a lead in supporting and reinforcing the effectiveness of the United Nations as an instrument to ensure that problems like this cannot develop in the future.

We have often debated both in the foreign affairs committee and in the defence committee the need for this country to be a strong supporter of the United Nations system not just because of a humanitarian interest but because of the vital interest of ourselves as Canadians to have a strong, international, multilateral capacity to respond to problems of this nature. Unfortunately they are not becoming less frequent in the world but in today's world for reasons which relate to the end of the cold war and shifting alliances and, in some ways, to the insecurity that is building in various parts of the world they risk becoming more frequent.

The need for a strong multilateral United Nations system which can respond to this type of situation is more important than ever before. What this initiative by the government is doing today is strengthening that system and sending a signal to the world that yes, the UN can work, yes there are countries that are willing to work within the UN system and make it work. That is a very important matter in the interests of all Canadians. I think we have to recognize the need for that.

I would like to point out that in so doing we are addressing the problems of a changing situation. We recognize that this situation is changing but it is very clear from the consultations with our authorities that General Baril will be able to deal with that and recognize that this is a new situation that has to be addressed hour by hour, but that it is not the time now, merely because there is a change in the situation, to back down.

When we are considering this matter in the House as members of Parliament, we obviously have to take the responsibility of asking whether we have the resources to enable us to do the job. As members of Parliament, we have consulted and have been informed by officials of the defence department and the foreign affairs department that we do have the necessary resources and that this is not some mission that we are undertaking in any irresponsible manner. On the contrary, it is something which we have the

capacity to do, the ability to deliver and we will ensure that we are able to do the job.

Those are the conditions which, united, make me believe that it is important for us to participate in this mission.

In conclusion, I would like to say something which has no direct impact on this mission but which, I believe, has to do with its importance. This is the third time we are debating the idea of a similar mission in this House. We have troops in Bosnia, we have troops in Haiti, and now we will have troops in Rwanda. Why are we there?

The Prime Minister referred to the reason in his speech before the House this afternoon. One of the reasons we are there is that we are a bilingual country.

We are a country of diversity with a tradition of tolerance, with a tradition in the world which, based on our own Canadian experience, makes ours a country particularly suited to undertaking this kind of mission.

I think that we can be proud, as members of Parliament, of the fact that our government has decided to undertake this mission. I think that we can be proud, as Canadian citizens, of the fact that our society allows us to undertake such a mission.

In conclusion, I think that, when the history of the development of international co-operation is told, this mission will be an example of the beginning of new form of international co-operation, and Canada will be the country that will have set the example of this new form of co-operation.

[Trade, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Today we will be signing a free trade agreement with Chile in Ottawa. When we look at the profile of trade and investment between Canada and Chile, it looks pretty positive already. Could the minister please tell the House what additional advantages we will be achieving from this agreement?

[Committees Of The House, November 1st, 1996]

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 on Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

[Multiculturalism, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

The minister recently made an announcement regarding the government's race relations and multiculturalism program. Could she please tell the House why she made the announcement now and whether the results of the program review reflect the recommendations of a report which called for the elimination of funding for ethnocultural groups?