Bill Graham

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House this evening to debate the issue of whether we should once again send troops into the Balkan theatre to aid that area in implementing the peace initiative which has recently been achieved at Dayton, Ohio.

The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether Canadian troops should go back. Should we be sending our troops back to this area where they have already performed with such skill, with such professionalism and have brought such pride to Canadians by the contribution they have made in the humanitarian rescue of unfortunate people in that region?

Our troops have made tremendous contributions in that area. Many members of the Reform Party have taken the position that they have done enough. Let us cease our contribution. Let us stop there.

As many other Canadians do, I might subscribe to that point of view myself if things had not changed. Things have changed enormously in the last couple of months. There has been a dramatic change in the conditions under which that whole region is presently evolving.

We have heard described in this House the conditions of the Dayton, Ohio peace agreement which has been achieved. There is no reason for me to go over the conditions and the parameters of that agreement.

It is not a perfect agreement, but the Serbian government of Mr. Milosevic is committed to it. There will be problems in Sarajevo. There will be problems in other areas but the Serbian government is committed to the agreement and various other governments in the area are committed to it. It is clear that without some form of active intervention from outside forces to make that peace treaty

work there will be no opportunity or no possibility of peace being established in the region.

We must ask ourselves the question, should we intervene at this time and give peace a chance? Should we listen to what Mr. Clinton said on television the other night when he laid out the reasons why for the first time he is prepared to commit United States' troops to this grand enterprise?

Should we recognize the tremendous contribution that the United States has made and is making to this and the difference that that will make? Should we then take these risks, for risks there will be? There are always risks in any enterprise worth the game.

It seems to me that this is an enterprise where we can balance the risks with the reasonable certainty of a better opportunity of ensuring peace than we could have before, if we take, for example, the position of the security of our troops, a matter referred to at great length by members from the third party.

It seems to me that the security of our troops in the present circumstances is far superior to what it was before. When we were debating this matter before, the members of the third party were constantly saying we should not be putting our troops in harm's way. They have no opportunity of defending themselves. They are in this awful position where they can be taken hostage, they cannot defend themselves, they have been put in an impossible position.

We are going to send them back equipped. We are sending them back with a force of the United States of America, 20,000 troops of the most important army in the world, with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world and with the authority to take defensive measures if they are attacked.

In my view, they are in a far better position than they ever were before. I am far more at ease as a parliamentarian to know that our troops will be going in those circumstances than where they were before.

If they were being asked to go back and produce in the conditions they were in before I would agree that they should not go back but these are not the same conditions. They are not so inconsistent.

Look at what the local countries around are dealing with, the determination of Croatia and Serbia. There is a contribution from all countries in the area. We can now be assured that the risk of this war spilling over can be eliminated.

It makes sense to send our troops back under these circumstance. This confirms our overall policy objectives in this area and all other areas, which is to provide effective humanitarian aid, to assure the evolution of multilateral peacekeeping which goes directly to fulfil the need for security and peace in the world. The joint foreign policy review by the Senate and House of Commons laid great emphasis on the need for Canada's participation in multilateral peacekeeping because that is the future of the world. That is where Canada can make a contribution and it is where its contribution is needed.

Finally, it corresponds to our commitment to the human rights of the people in these areas. There can be no human rights without peace, security and stability. Without that the talk about human rights is empty talk. This gives us an opportunity to contribute to the establishment of human rights in this area.

We have made these contributions before. We have not just contributed arms forces in this area before. We have contributed mounted police who on a day to day policing mission gave stability and proper peace and security to small neighbourhoods to ensure that individuals could get some opportunity for justice and fair treatment.

Our non-governmental organizations have provided food aid, resettled people, provided an opportunity for people to try and get their lives back together. This can only be accomplished in an area where peace has been established and where there is some form of security guaranteed by troops. It is our troops that will be doing that.

I feel we must support this initiative. We must urge the government to be part of any comprehensive scheme in which our NATO allies are participating and in which we can make an important contribution. It corresponds to our interests in establishing peace in the region. It creates credibility for the multilateral peacekeeping process which is an important contribution which Canada can make to the world today.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this initiative is in keeping with Canadian interests and values. It is in our interest, because we have an interest in peace and in humanitarian aid, and we can be proud of what we have already done and what we will be doing in this area. It is in keeping with our values, because our values are those of a society that is fair, equitable and peaceful.

We want to contribute to a world where these values prevail in place of those of war and aggression. It is, moreover, our duty to take part in this initiative. Chances are good this initiative will succeed and that we will make a significant contribution to its success. I am very proud to speak in favour of this government initiative.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's remarks ambiguous. I would like him to clarify this for us. His leader has always been in favour of a Canadian military presence in Europe for humanitarian reasons, as he so eloquently explained in our last debate on the matter. And he himself agrees in principle with this policy for the same reasons that I and other members of this House believe it is crucial that Canada participate in humanitarian and large-scale efforts to restore peace in that part of the world.

I myself support this government initiative. I think that the hon. member also supports this government initiative. I think that his party supports this initiative. Even so, he is looking for an excuse to criticize the Prime Minister, to criticize the government, to find small things to complain about here and there, claiming that our Prime Minister is wrong when he says that our level of participation depends on the American level of participation. This goes without saying, but at the same time it does not mean that the Americans are deciding for us, as the hon. member is suggesting. What it means is that we will make our own decision based on what our allies are doing. It is perfectly logical, rational and appropriate.

I personally find that holding this debate in the House of Commons gives us, Canadian parliamentarians, the chance to have a say in this decision. This is undoubtedly a complex decision that depends on many other factors, but that is always how it is on the international scene, and to claim otherwise is, in my view, to distort the debate and only to look for excuses to criticize the government.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this World AIDS Day I am honoured to present this petition signed by over 3,200 Canadians from every region of Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider a program of long term stabilized funding of AIDS research proportionate to the HIV population in Canada. Canada ranks third among G-7 countries in its incidence of HIV but ranks last in AIDS research funding.

I fully concur with the request of these petitioners.

[World Aids Day, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day. Sadly thousands of Canadians are all too personally familiar with the tragedy of AIDS and HIV.

The human cost of AIDS is immeasurable. Each day our communities lose valuable and talented members to this disease. Right now AIDS is one of the primary causes of premature death of Canadian men. We must devote greater resources to its control and elimination.

AIDS has preyed particularly severely on Canada's artistic community and this impoverishes every Canadian. Museums, galleries and art shops across the country will be closed today in commemoration of a day without art to honour artists lost to AIDS.

Recently, there have been breakthroughs in the fight against this terrible disease, but we now have a responsibility to guarantee stable and adequate funding for research, and to assist individuals and their families.

[Sri Lanka, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the continuing conflict in Sri Lanka is a matter of great concern to many Canadians, including many in my riding of Rosedale who have come here from Sri Lanka.

Would the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific inform the House of Canada's position on the Government of Sri Lanka's military operations in the north which have displaced so many innocent civilians?

[Trade, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government recently released figures about Canada's international trade.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade tell the House what these figures show about Canada's export performance and how it contributes to our economic growth and jobs for Canadians?

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I had occasion to ask the minister about the issue of the Helms-Burton bill dealing with an embargo against goods from Cuba. I should like to introduce my question this evening by reminding the representative of the ministry about some of the facts of the bill.

We in Canada share the interest of American legislators and Americans generally in seeing Cuba begin to respect human rights and to open up its economy to forces from outside so that it has a liberal, open economy for the benefit of all Cuban citizens. What we are talking about here is the methodology whereby this change may be obtained.

We believe, it seems to me in our government, in a form of open trading whereby we can liberalize trade relationships by having relations with one another. The United States, for some reason not difficult to understand because it is rooted in U.S. domestic politics, has chosen in respect of Cuba an embargo that flies in the face of its policies with respect to other countries and that seeks to penalize the Cuban government and the Cuban people for the fact that they are unwilling to conform to U.S. standards and practices.

We do not deny that the United States has the right to embargo Cuba if that is what its domestic policies call for it to do. What we object to, what I will ask for further information on and what I asked in the question I earlier posed to the minister was what we were doing in Canada to ensure that the measures being adopted by the American congress do not proceed in a way that would violate international law, violate international obligations of the United States to Canada and violate our rights to conduct our relationships with Cuba and the Cuban people in a way that we can ensure Canadian policies and Canadian law are respected.

The bill on which I asked the question, known colloquially as the Helms-Burton bill, has in it several items that are very problematic to us as Canadians. They prohibit U.S. persons from extending financing to businesses that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government. A U.S. person is defined in the bill in such a way that it could extend to subsidiaries in Canada. It denies entry into the United States of persons, individuals or shareholders of corporations who traffic in U.S. property. It gives to the United

States courts the jurisdiction to decide compensation claims for property confiscated by any foreign government.

In all respects we have serious problems with these propositions. It represents in many ways a secondary boycott which the United States has said in the past it totally disapproves of in respect of the Arab boycott of Israel. It represents extraterritorial measures against Canadian corporations carrying on lawful business in this country and with Cuba. It gives to the United States courts a jurisdiction that frankly would introduce extraordinarily difficult measures in respect of dealing with the United States in United States courts.

These measures reflect a view of the United States congress that is willing to take measures against the interests of the United States in many respects, against international law, and against its international obligations to Canada and other nations. As such, it is a dangerous precedent because it reflects a sense of the United States power which says it is above the rules it has set and in which all of us participate.

I would be anxious to know what measures the Government of Canada can take to tell the U.S. Congress what we can do to protect ourselves. How can we use the Extraterritorial Measures Act which we already have? How can we respond to Congress to let the U.S. know that we in this country intend to pursue our rightful place in the international community in a way that respects our interests and our proper commercial relationships with a friendly country?

[Official Languages, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, Ontario recognized French as one of its two official languages before the courts. The province has since passed several provisions which have made it increasingly bilingual in the judicial field. In fact, a case can now be heard in French at any level of the provincial legal system, including that of the appeal court.

The Association des juristes d'expression française, which held its convention in Ottawa this past weekend, has always been at the forefront of the movement to improve our bilingual judicial system. This is a complex and difficult task, and I want to congratulate the association for its dedication and its determination in overcoming any obstacle to that very important goal.

The program benefits all Ontarians. It also shows that, in North America, the French language and culture have a much better chance of being preserved, and even expanding, in a bilingual Canada than in separate states.

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-103. Before discussing the content of this proposed legislation, I want to say a few words about culture and the importance of the Canadian culture.

Canadian culture includes a vast array of things. Ultimately, it is the essence and the reflection of who we are as individuals and as a nation. It reflects the way Canadians see each other, as well as the way they perceive the world. Our culture and our life as a people

are inextricably intertwined. Cultural events, which are a reflection of ourselves, show the result of our creative voices and energies.

Culture is a complex notion. It includes the knowledge, beliefs, arts, moral values, laws, customs, as well as all the other skills and customs developed by the members of a society. Culture does not only refer to art. It includes the periodicals and books that we read, the records and the programs that we listen to. Canadians are avid consumers of cultural products.

Unfortunately, the majority of these products are of foreign origin. I say unfortunately because I wonder, as a member of this Parliament and of our Canadian society, how we are going to pass on our values and principles to our children and to our fellow citizens, if we have no control over publications, at least over a large number of publications, including cultural ones, in our community.

In this era of mass communications, our industries, including the film, book, periodical, radio, television and recording industries, must face an enormous challenge. Not only must Canadian producers assume the very high costs and risks inherent to a small market, they must also compete with foreign products which are generally cheaper and which have free access to our markets. If our cultural industries are not relatively sound from a financial point of view, our cultural development will suffer and we will no longer be heard. This is precisely what this bill seeks to avoid.

These reasons explain why Canada's cultural development deserves the full attention of public authorities, and particularly that of the members of this Parliament. As the hon. member for Don Valley West pointed out, every state takes similar measures. He mentioned Europe and France. Europeans have what they call "cultural exceptions" to protect, through rules of European content, their cultural institutions.

And remarkably, as my colleague for Don Valley West pointed out, the Americans are precisely the ones who generally treat questions of culture and cultural exports as purely commercial products. They also have the necessary means to protect American culture, American communications, American films and so on.

It seems to me, therefore, that the member for Peace River has somewhat oversimplified the issue. Yes, we live in a world of free trade. That is true, but we must never forget that our American competitors are experts in transforming free trade principles into elements of protection when it suits them to.

I have a friend in the United States who uses a wonderful expression. He has often said that as far as his people are concerned, free trade ranks somewhere between Christianity and jogging on a list of things much talked about but little practised.

Another American colleague of mine recently said at a meeting I was at that, like some of us recognize, achieving free trade is like going to heaven; we all want to go to heaven but not just yet.

That is the problem. These are principles easily expressed but, regardless of the country, there are always impediments to prevent culture from being protected. The reason for this is a very significant one: culture is the very essence of a society.

We must be very pleased about what happened yesterday in the province of Quebec. We must all rejoice and I cannot miss this opportunity to state how thrilled I am with the wise decision the people of Quebec made in yesterday's referendum.

I venture to think that the cultural aspect played a strong role in that decision, because Quebec's contribution to Canadian culture and the Canadian identity is enormous. Quebec makes it possible for the French language to flourish in Ontario and other provinces, and therefore contributes to the preservation and protection of French in North America, thus serving the interests of Quebec and of Quebecers themselves.

Now we can work together in the interests of the French communities, the English speaking communities, the multicultural communities, to preserve this focal point of hope our country represents to the whole world, which is reflected in the culture this bill is attempting to protect for all Canadians within this somewhat limited context.

The Government of Canada has fully assumed its responsibilities in this area. Over the past 35 years, it has put into place a wide range of organizations and programs in support of Canadian culture, to bolster what has been accomplished within the country. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board and our national museums and archival institutions, through the Canada Council, distribute grants to artists and cultural organizations across the country.

The government promotes investment in cultural products by granting tax benefits to funding agencies such as Telefilm Canada. It helps Canadian periodicals attract the advertising revenue they need for their survival and facilitates their distribution to a very dispersed readership.

Nevertheless, the problem of very high production and marketing costs still exists. In other industries, sales revenues are usually such that companies are able to break even. Although it has always been difficult for Canadians to finance production of cultural goods from national sales because of the small size of the market, it becomes practically impossible as a result of the advantages enjoyed in Canada by foreign, especially American competitors.

This is certainly not to criticize foreign competitors, many of whom enrich our cultural life.

The purpose of this legislation is only to highlight the structural and financial obstacles to the distribution of Canadian cultural products. Among our Canadian cultural industries, the one that concerns us particularly today in the context of this bill is the periodical industry.

As was pointed out by the authors of the report of the Royal Commission on Publications in 1961, periodicals "can give us the critical analysis, the informed discourse and dialogue which are indispensable in a sovereign society".

In the past thirty years, the Canadian periodical industry, both francophone and anglophone, has become more creative and, to some extent, more profitable. Unlike most of our cultural industries, the periodical sector is generally under Canadian control.

In fact, our Canadian periodical industries include more than 1,300 magazines, each with their own characteristics. These periodicals target various groups, use a variety of distribution methods and are regional or national in scope. Their content may be very specialized or very wide-ranging.

The large number and diversity of periodicals published in this country-consumer magazines, business publications and specialized periodicals-reflect the concerns and tastes of Canadians.

All regions as well most large urban centres have their own magazine. There are magazines for almost every field of endeavour: economics, professions and trades, arts and letters, science, religion, recreation, and so forth.

The relative success of this industry is largely due to government measures aimed at giving Canadian periodicals access to advertising markets and the public. Although their editorial content is rich and varied, the state of Canadian periodicals is precarious. In 1991, more than half failed to make a profit.

The Canadian market is more limited and is also shared by two main language groups. Canadian magazines will never have more than a fraction of the circulation of what are mainly American magazines. Circulation revenues of Canadian magazines will tend to remain below those of imported magazines. American magazines, for instance, collect more subscription revenues in Canada than do Canadian magazines.

Advertising sales play a vital role in the magazine industry. Publishers of periodicals cannot break even unless they manage to attract advertising. This is true in all countries, but Canadian publishers are often faced with strong competition from imported magazines, especially from the United States.

That is why about 30 years ago, Canada took steps to make it attractive for advertisers targeting the Canadian market to use the Canadian media.

The Canadian government was able to ensure that our periodicals would have more equitable access to their own markets. A complex set of measures involving postage, taxation and customs, together with subsidies, has contributed to the growth and stability of the industry.

This particular measure and this legislation are an attempt to complete a system that protects not only our magazines but, more broadly, the culture, ideas and values these magazines communicate to Canadians and their children, by propagating and protecting Canadian culture. This government is to be commended for taking measures we feel are absolutely indispensable to preserve-

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Central Nova for ceding her place to enable me to attend to other business later this afternoon.

Equal access to job opportunities is a principle Canadians adopted several years ago. Other nations think highly of us because we do more than pay lip service to equality. We take proactive steps to make equality a reality in the everyday lives of our citizens.

Bill C-64 will do much to expand opportunities for genuine equality in the workplace for women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

It is our responsibility to ensure that this legislation achieves this important goal whenever possible.

That is why, like many of my colleagues who spoke earlier, I have a serious problem with Motion No. 7 introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The hon. member's motion takes the need for co-operation in implementing the Employment Equity Act to an extreme that I do not believe would achieve the desired result. The government's perspective is to do what is necessary to implement and administer Bill C-64 in the most productive way possible but responsibility for implementation administration must remain with employers. They are the ones who ultimately have to answer to the commission if they fail to meet their responsibilities.

Let us consider what would happen if we adopted the hon. member's motion and moved from the bill's current requirements for collaboration between employers and employees to what might be called a co-management arrangement. For one thing, it would reduce the bill's requirement for consultation. The hon. member's motion if adopted would mean that there is no longer any need to consult regarding implementation or revision of employment equity plans.

Bill C-64 as it presently stands allows the commission or a tribunal to order consultation. I find it surprising that the hon. member who is seeking to enrich and improve the bill would want to delete provisions regarding consultations and replace them with weaker provisions that would not be subject to a direction or order. I would ask him and the party he represents to reconsider the bill from that perspective. It seems to me and to the government that the amendment as proposed actually weakens rather than strengthens the bill, contrary to the avowed intent of the hon. member.

Another Canadian characteristic that makes us the envy of others is our willingness to work together for the collective good of all our citizens. Voluntary collaboration and co-operation are innate qualities of being Canadian. I know many of us in the House seek and strive to enshrine those principles in all the work we do. I have every confidence that management and labour will collaborate to ensure the most effective implementation of employment equity plans. Why should they not? It surely is to the advantage of both.

It is in creating plans and legislation of this kind that one achieves an appropriate balance between the needs of labour and the needs of management. In doing so we have created a labour-management relations atmosphere which is beneficial to both parties. That is what we seek to achieve in this bill.

As my colleagues before me have said, we have already deliberated over the Bloc's concerns in committee. The government feels that having given these concerns due consideration, we are satisfied with the way the provisions now stand.

I remind the hon. member that the Employment Equity Act is designed to help move us closer to true equality in the workplace. It is not designed to change other aspects of employer-employee relationships. However, that would be the unfortunate result if we adopted the hon. member's motion.

The way the bill now stands, collaboration is a requirement. The ultimate responsibility for making decisions however lies with employers and that is the way it should be. There is a difference between the requirement for collaboration and discussion and the ultimate responsibility for the decision which surely must be taken by employers who have both the financial and managerial responsibility for ensuring that those decisions are properly carried out.

Hon. members know from their own experiences that we put much more effort into something when the effort is willingly given and not obtained through coercion. One cannot legislate co-operation and a positive attitude. We have seen that in the workplace and we are trying to strive to avoid confrontational situations in the workplace.

Positive co-operation comes about because the parties involved bring the right attitude to the task at hand. That is what the current provisions in the bill will achieve. They will create an atmosphere within which collaboration, co-operation and discussion will take place.

They will not seek however to create what the member's amendment seeks to create which is a sort of co-management regime that would by its very nature lead to strife between those on the management side with their responsibilities and those on the labour side with their responsibilities. It would totally confuse the two roles which both parties properly play in the workplace and would substitute, instead of this atmosphere of co-operation and collaboration, an atmosphere of mistrust between the two parties between which it is very important to establish good working relationships.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, for the reasons I just mentioned, I cannot support Motion No. 7.

[English]