Bill Graham

[Ryerson Polytechnic University, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today in my riding of Rosedale in Toronto, Ryerson Polytechnic University is celebrating the completion of an infrastructure project which will create 47 person years of employment.

Ryerson is a special institution of learning which offers a unique educational experience to its students. It is a tremendous asset to the city of Toronto and to the country at large.

The ceremony taking place today also illustrates how the infrastructure program initiated by the government has enabled a wide range of institutions to create or upgrade needed facilities. The program which has been criticized by some for being a bricks and mortar program has proven to be much more than that. This particular example shows how the program contributes in a meaningful way to the education of the citizens of this country. The

program is also a concrete example of the constructive co-operation that occurs between the federal and provincial governments.

I extend my heartfelt congratulations to President Lajeunesse and to the entire university community of Ryerson for the successful completion of this important program.

[Middle East, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask this House to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks this week in Israel.

Once again enemies of peace in the Middle East have surfaced and the innocent have been made victims. We urge the Israeli government and the Palestinian authorities to continue their work together for peace and to resist violent attempts by marginal groups to derail the peace process.

The Israeli government and Palestinian authorities have shown the world that former combatants can sit down together and reach a peace agreement. The terrorists who are trying to derail the process are being condemned by Canada and the international community as a whole.

The people of Canada have always strongly supported peace in the Middle East. We reject violence as a means of resolving the complex divisions between peoples there. A motion passed by the House yesterday was a demonstration of our solidarity with the

champions of peaceful political solutions to this too longstanding conflict and a condemnation of those who would see it destroyed.

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I noticed that your vision had been obscured by the eloquence of the members of the House in terms of seeing the clock at the end of the Chamber. If I might suggest that hon. members grant the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister an opportunity to speak to the issue. I know he intends to be very brief. I think it would be appropriate if he followed up on the debate.

I ask the permission of hon. members to enable you, Mr. Speaker, to have the obscured vision you were good enough to have for the last speaker.

[Drug Abuse, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the use of drugs is one of the most corrupting influences in our inner cities, producing poverty and crime.

In Rosedale riding the Regent Park community centre has set up the Regent Park community coalition against substance abuse to fight this menace. Its program involves youth making videos on such issues as drug and alcohol abuse and how to resist peer pressure encouraging smoking, drugs and alcohol.

They promote a healthier community by promoting a healthy lifestyle and set an example for their peers. At the centre young people are given an opportunity to explore these issues and reflect their thoughts in video form. In making these videos they also learn skills that will prepare them for future employment and access to the work world.

I would like to pay special tribute to the Regent Park focus coalition and its leader, Adonis Huggins, for bringing together young people and empowering them to say no to substance abuse of all kinds.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a complicated issue. The first part of the issue concerns the governance of the country. He is saying that his sense of the political process in British Columbia or that of observers is that the present government lacks credibility.

I do not disagree the present government in British Columbia is in political difficulty. We live in a process whereby that government was elected for a certain term and has certain obligations to serve the people of British Columbia. This is not a new policy that has been brought forward. The argument would stand better both with the public and with the political process if this were some radical departure the present government was proposing, if it were something in the extreme. That is not what is happening.

The commission has been put in place to take the venom out of the process and to get the negotiations moving along. There is no guarantee they will be completed before the government changes, but the process must be allowed to continue.

To use the present government's unpopularity as a pretext to end what has been a long, extended historical process, which for some people has been going on for 40 years, would be unfair to the aboriginal peoples. It would be disrespectful to the political process of the country.

Sometimes in parliamentary debate we exchange views about one another, but I am sure the hon. member would be very unhappy if I were to stand and say that the polls indicated that the Reform Party has x per cent and therefore nothing he says in the House is to have any credibility. The member was elected. He has a right to speak.

That government was elected to do a job. It is doing its job. There is no sense that it will necessarily complete it but we must continue the process. We have a democratically elected process in the country that has established a mechanism by which we are finally seeing some chance for the resolution of these enormously complex, difficult and important social issues.

I for one would like to see the process continue and to see a peaceful resolution achieved. That is why I find it very difficult to accept the basic premise under which the motion has been moved.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. I oppose the motion. I consider it to be ill-conceived. Why do I take that position?

The first reason is that the correct approach to the issue was set out by the government in its red book promises. In the red book the government made it very clear that if we were elected we would be committed to building new partnerships with aboriginal peoples based on trust and mutual respect. We stated in the red book what a Liberal government would do.

We stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people would enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians. It would be a Canada where First Nations, Inuit and Metis would live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples. All Canadians would be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would be committed to the fair sharing of the potential of our nation. It would be a Canada where aboriginal people would have the positive option to live and work wherever they chose. Perhaps most important, we set out our goal for a Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure families and in healthy communities with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada.

As a result, we also said that the resolution of land claims would be a priority. This is our vision and we have been moving step by step to bring it alive. In two years we have already made considerable progress.

On August 10 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians announced the government's approach to the implementa-

tion of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. We have fostered greater economic development opportunities for aboriginal communities through co-management agreements and support for business ventures. We have committed an additional $20 million annually to the Indian and Inuit post-secondary student support program. We have settled some 44 specific claims and we have seen five comprehensive claims come into effect. By any measure we have achieved a great deal in living up to the commitments we made to the people of Canada in the red book during the election.

Perhaps the most complex challenge to the government and to the people of Canada in this area is treaty making in British Columbia. I would like to remind the House that British Columbia is unique in Canada. If I could remind hon. members of the debate which was recently held in the House, it is a distinct society in this respect, in that the process of signing treaties has never been completed. Only a handful of treaties were signed in the pre-Confederation period and they cover parts of Vancouver Island only.

In 1899 Treaty No. 8 was signed with the First Nations in the Peace River area in the northeast of the province. However, in the rest of the province the issues of aboriginal rights remain largely unresolved. First Nations legitimately want to see a resolution to these issues.

We have repeatedly seen the First Nations of British Columbia press for treaty resolution. Until this decade, however, the provincial government had been unwilling to negotiate. It took the position that there was no need to negotiate because whatever rights to land and resources the aboriginal people may have had in British Columbia had been extinguished by an act of the crown.

The result was decades of legal acrimony. The First Nations first sought settlement through the courts of what they had been unable to achieve through the negotiation process. In 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked whether the aboriginal title to the Nisga'a traditional territory had been extinguished in the Calder case. In that case the six judges were evenly split on the question. It fell on a very narrow technical issue in the way in which the case had been brought.

It was very clear from reading the judgments in the case that there was a recognition by the courts of the country of a legitimate claim to aboriginal rights in British Columbia which had to be addressed equitably if we were ever to resolve this extraordinarily important issue.

The courts for their part have expressed repeatedly and in the strongest terms that the issues brought before them ought to be settled at the negotiating table and not before the bar, settled through negotiations and not litigation. Many cases have determined this issue. I cite Judge Macfarlane in one who wrote:

Treaty making is the best way to respect Indian rights. The questions of what aboriginal rights exist-cannot be decided in this case, and are ripe for negotiation.

He went on to observe:

During the course of these proceedings, it became apparent that there were two schools of thought.

The first is an all or nothing approach, which says that the Indian Nations were here first, that they have exclusive ownership and control of all the land and resources and may deal with them as they see fit.

The second is a co-existence approach, which says that the Indian interest and other interests can co-exist to a large extent, and that consultation and reconciliation is the process by which the Indian culture can be preserved and by which other Canadians may be assured that their interests, developed over 125 years of nationhood, can also be respected-I favour the second approach.

I must say I agree. When I was in the private practice of law I had the opportunity of being involved in a case that was very interesting and very instructive in this area. It was the Baker Lake case. It took place in the Northwest Territories. The court also resolved and ruled that the applicants in that case had aboriginal rights, but the court failed to set out what those aboriginal rights were. It failed to set out what the specificity of those rights were.

Therefore the aboriginal peoples in the area were left with the unpleasant situation of knowing they had a right but not knowing whether they could exercise it in contradistinction against mining companies that might be in conflict with their claims and exercise it in contradistinction against other claims.

These issues cannot necessarily be settled by courts of law. The courts may lay out a general provision such as saying that there are aboriginal rights that have not been extinguished. That is a legal issue and an issue a court can rule on.

What is the exact content of those rights and how they will be applied in a modern complex society where there are conflicts between urban and rural uses of land mixed with that of the aboriginal peoples? They have to be addressed in the negotiating process. That is being sought in the circumstances. That is why I agree with what the judge said in the case to which I have referred. I am sure members of the House would agree that the co-existence approach, based upon consultation and reconciliation, is the appropriate approach.

I am sorry, I say to my legal fraternity friends, to suggest that court is not the place to be on this issue. There are places where we do not need lawyers and we certainly do not need judges to resolve them. We need the political will to have people sit down and resolve their disputes with a mutual trust and understanding among them.

It pains me to say that in the province of British Columbia today quality of trust is absent. I happen to come from Vancouver originally. I happen to have the privilege of going back to Vancouver regularly. I have seen the tremendous turbulent summer of pain and protest that took place last summer. These confrontations will not resolve the issues. It is only through negotiation and

mutual respect that we will be able to do that. It will not work through an all or nothing approach.

We cannot leave the resolution of the issues for those who have little respect for the law. That is what worries me about the resolution. It astonishes me that a member of the third party would bring forward a resolution suggesting that this issue be pushed over for a couple of years. Basically that is the suggestion.

I have listened to the passionate intensity with which members of the third party speak in the House about the rights of their constituents, about their need to defend their constituents, and about how their rights are not being properly regarded by the government and by the ways in which the laws of the country apply.

What would they advocate to their constituents about the resolution of their essential rights, how their lives will be conducted and how they will be able to earn their living? These rights have been in abeyance in some cases for 30, 40 or 50 frustrating years. Would they go back to their constituents and suggest that they just sit still and put this off? I find that difficult to believe. I do not believe they would do that. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should not be treating the aboriginal peoples of the country or of the province of British Columbia any differently than we treat other citizens in this respect.

We have a B.C. Treaty Commission. It establishes a solid foundation for consultation and reconciliation. At the heart of its operations are the coexistence approach and consultative approach. There are those in the House and those in the community who would maintain that the process concedes too much to First Nations. This too is starting to sow discontent.

I have heard radio shows in British Columbia. I have heard members say that 100 per cent of the province is covered by claims of the aboriginal peoples. However hon. members know better than this. We all know that claims are one thing, but to exaggerate them as a threat to the existence of the process is irresponsible. Claims are one thing. They are put forward but they can be resolved not necessarily in a court of law but in a framework of consultation, mutual respect and a desire to achieve a result that will be beneficial for all parties.

If that approach is taken, rather than an in terrorem approach of having huge claims, of the whole province being swamped and taken away from us, we would move toward a much more satisfactory resolution of the issue.

We know there are overlapping claims. The commission knows that is the case. They can be dealt with. We will not move forward by leaving the issue fester for another two years, until after another provincial government election; pushing it off into the future; and allowing the distrust, mistrust and exaggerations on both sides to prevail.

For those reasons I urge the House not to adopt an all or nothing approach. We should give to the British Columbia Treaty Commission its right to facilitate modern day treaties, to assess the readiness of parties to begin the negotiations, to allocate negotiation funding to aboriginal peoples, to assist parties to obtain dispute resolution services at the request of all parties and to monitor the status of negotiations.

In that way we could move the issue onward and start the process of achieving an equitable, just and lasting resolution of an issue that is extraordinarily important not only to the citizens of British Columbia but all citizens of the country who wish to see a harmonious social climate in which to operate.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

There is no suggestion of inequality, as my colleague suggests. Distinct society is not a special status. In recognizing Quebec as a distinct society we do not diminish ourselves. We enrich ourselves. This is not a suggestion of superiority. This is a suggestion of a recognition of a difference with which we live and with which we enrich ourselves by adapting and making a part of our culture.

I realize my time has almost expired. I want to say that in Ontario we have a very large francophone community, whose survival depends on the existence of a distinct Quebec society. A society that contributes to the enrichment of our society in Ontario and to the existence of an Ontario that is distinct from the United States, and I want to say to this House that the existence of Canada as a distinct society depends on our recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

I will repeat that in English as I believe it very strongly. The existence of Canada and the future of Canada as a distinct society depend upon our willingness to recognize the existence of Quebec as a distinct society within us. That will be our strength. That will be our future. That will be the future of Canada.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

If my hon. friend from Esquimalt cannot see the clock, I can understand it at this hour. I am sure he and I would be happy to share our time.

In spite of the remarks that were made by some of the predecessors from his party who suggested that those of us on this side of the House were speaking because we felt we had to vote a certain way with the government, let me assure the other members in the House that when we rise to speak on this question we are speaking from the profound desire of Canadians to speak for our country, to speak of how we understand our country and what we are trying to achieve. We may have our differences, but we must understand that together we must try to resolve what is right about our country.

As the great prime minister of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said many years ago, elections decide everything and answer nothing. The referendum is somewhat like that. It made a decision. It decided that Quebec was to stay in Canada, but it did not answer the question as to under what conditions it is to stay in Canada. It did not answer many of the fundamental questions we are obliged as parliamentarians to review.

I believe profoundly and seriously that the Prime Minister's initiative is not a constitutional initiative but is a realistic initiative. It corresponds to the aspirations of Quebecers. It is a solemn undertaking by this federal House and our executive to be guided in its decisions by a recognition of Quebec's unique culture, linguistic characteristics, and civil law traditions.

When we come to this House, we all come with our various experiences as individuals and Canadians. I was born in Montreal but grew up in British Columbia, in Vancouver. Most of my family still lives in Vancouver.

I am there regularly. I consider myself a westerner, to some extent, but I now live in Toronto. I had the opportunity and the privilege of teaching at the University of Montreal and McGill University, so I also consider myself a Quebecer.

When I look at the history of Quebec since 1774, since the Quebec Act, since our colleagues rejected Lord Durham's proposal to submerge Quebecers in an English ocean, if I may use that expression, when I look at the history of my country, at great French Canadians like Cartier, Laurier, Saint-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien, federalist Quebecers faithful to their people and convinced that federalism is the best way to protect their people's existence. Why can we say that?

Because the province of Quebec has a distinct identity. There is a distinctiveness that makes it different from the rest of Canada. There is Bill 101 which protects the French language in Quebec. Quebec controls immigration to the province, which is not the case in other provinces. Internationally, and I have a particular interest as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Quebec with its membership in the francophonie and its privileged relationship with France is seen as different from the other provinces.

We can say that in terms of protecting French culture and the French language in North America, for reasons already mentioned by the previous speaker, Quebec already has a different identity, a kind of distinct society. It is a very important asset for us in the rest of Canada. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made an emotional speech the other day about protecting the French language outside Quebec and he really convinced me that I as an Ontarian had a duty to protect the distinct identity and distinct society of Quebec.

I speak as an Ontarian. Can we say as Ontarians and as British Columbians that we have an interest in protecting a distinct society

in Quebec? Does the existence of a francophone majority within a province in Canada enrich the cultural and political life of the country in a way that enables us to be distinct and different?

This is an extraordinary and complex subject. We can say that our colleagues who have spoken earlier in the House are right when they say that British Columbians are distinct. Of course this is true. We are all distinct.

However speaking as I do, coming from Toronto, we recognize that our culture in North America will only survive in the face of North American television and the enormous pressures in which we live on the north-south pole, whether they are economic, environmental or cultural, if we live beside Quebec which is part of us, enriches us and gives us a specificity that is different. We as Ontarians are different because we have Quebec as a distinct society beside us. We as Ontarians live in a country that is bilingual, bicultural and bi-juridical.

I have had experience as a young lawyer travelling outside the country. One of my great privileges was to work as a Canadian in international conferences. People were able to say to me: "You represent a country that represents the civil law and common law traditions. You represent a country which has the Gaelic traditions and the Anglo-Saxon traditions. You are able to act as a bridge in this new world, this interdependent world in which we live. You are able to participate in this world in a way that is different from Americans, British, French and anyone else in the world", precisely because we are Canadians and precisely because we are enriched by the presence of the distinct society of Quebec which forms a part of ourselves. We do not need to reject it. It enriches our experience. We are able to be what we are because we have Quebec as a part of us. We would be poorer if we did not. We would be poorer if we did not have Quebec as a distinct society.

If we look into the 21st century we must recognize that we will be challenged as a people. Whether we come from British Columbia, Alberta, the maritimes, Ontario or Quebec, we will be challenged to adapt to enormously changing conditions. In the course of those changes our adaptation, our flexibility and our ability to be something different will be precisely because we have been able to shoulder together, to partner together with our colleagues in Quebec a linguistic and cultural experience that means we can live and make something work in the country that is different from anything else.

That is why I argue with my colleagues in favour of the distinct society. I respect their difference of opinion. I ask them to respect ours. This is not some political vote. This is a strong belief of people.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River for beginning his remarks by stating that we have to achieve a proper balance between the need for the security of our troops and what we are trying to achieve. I regret that he then promptly descended into political rhetoric which suggested that all of this was being done for the sake of political vanity and the whims of politicians. Does the member not agree that this is a changed situation? Will he not admit that this is an extraordinary opportunity?

Three months ago in that theatre we looked at the possibility of that war extending itself outside those borders, of hundreds of thousands of displaced people, thousands of men, women and children losing their lives, with a terrible winter coming on with no prospect of success. Suddenly we have a prospect of peace, which requires to make it work the contribution of the world community to get in there, pull the parties apart and make it work. Surely that is worth some risk. Surely that is worth our participating in. Why is that a whim? Why is that some irresponsible craziness on behalf of people to want to see that?

Is Mr. Clinton being whimsical and foolish to commit 20,000 United States troops to this enterprise? Are the British and the French a bunch of whimsical idiots to be doing this? Why are we suddenly portrayed as people who have just vanity instead of people who are recognizing we have a global responsibility to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, which we have been doing in this country for generations now? This is an opportunity to make an important contribution. To be pulling up all these objections at this time and to be accusing people of engaging troops because of some form of whimsical vanity strikes me as not only irresponsible, it is absolute foolishness. It is wind and wind and wind.

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to have a reductio ad absurdum on these sorts of arguments. Is the hon. member seriously suggesting that we are going to parachute our troops in unarmed, that we are going to drop them in with absolutely no equipment? This is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

It reminds me of exactly what the Bloc Quebecois members were saying this afternoon. They were saying: "We agree we should be participating. We accept that we have an obligation to do this. We accept that we should be there, but we do not like the fact that the Prime Minister has not talked to Mr. Clinton first", or something like that. Reasons can always be found.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about participating in a NATO enterprise. It is going to be absolutely secure by a great deal of superior American firepower, troops and armour and we will be able to play an important supporting role.

I do not think it is up to us in this House to try and second guess the generals, to second guess exactly what is going to be on the ground. Are there going to be three tanks, two troop carriers, four submachine guns? That is not the role of members of Parliament.

Members of Parliament know we have armed services that are equipped to do the job they will be asked to do. We know they are not being sent over there with a bunch of Eaton's catalogues strapped around them. We know they are going there in an enormous, complicated enterprise with NATO troops and with allies who, all pulling together, will be able to achieve this extraordinary enterprise.

To suggest that they are somehow being dropped in there without proper equipment and preparation is irresponsible. In my view it totally ignores what we have been able to achieve so far. It totally ignores the quality of our armed services.

As a member of this House, I do not expect the government to give me a shopping list of every platoon and every weapon that is going. What I expect is a principled decision based on a common sense approach and an understanding of the strategic and military necessities. My understanding from listening to the Minister of Defence this morning in opening this debate and from listening to what the Prime Minister has said to date, is that we have that understanding. Let us go with it. Let us not quibble and constantly raise these quibbling concerns which are really just an excuse to try and get out of what our duty calls us to do.