Bill Graham

[Beat The Street, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is a literacy program for homeless young people in my riding of Rosedale which has been providing second chances to some of those who are left behind in our society. Beat the Street is a Frontier College program that is giving individuals the skills and self-confidence to get off the street and into school or the job market.

Beat the Street was founded in 1985 by two former street youths who recognized that literacy skills were absolutely essential to get young people off the street. By providing a supportive learning environment where students could find their own goals, the program's tutors are making a difference in the lives of hundreds of Canada's youth.

Beat the Street is now internationally recognized and is the model for two similar programs now operating in Winnipeg and Regina.

Workers and students from Beat the Street were in Ottawa recently to meet with the Prime Minister and individual MPs and Senators. I know all those who spent time with the students were very impressed with their ideas and thoughtfulness.

On behalf of all members of Parliament I salute Beat the Street for all its efforts. I call on the government to support it and all other youth literacy programs.

[The Philippines, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you may be aware, Sunday, June 12 marks independence day for the Philippines.

I want to express my sincere wishes for the joyful celebrations which will be taking place this weekend in my riding and across Canada to mark this event.

The Filipino community in Canada is a strong and vital one. They have made and are making a significant contribution to our national life. They are also a lively and vibrant presence in Rosedale and my involvement in their community over the past few years has been a truly rewarding part of my political life.

I hope members of the House will join me in congratulating the people of the Canadian Filipino community in saying mabuhay to them and in particular to the member for Winnipeg North who sits in this House.

We wish them all the best in their celebrations at the multitude of events planned to mark this day and to their success in the rich contributions they make to Canadian society.

[China, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.

This weekend marks the fifth anniversary of the events at Tiananmen Square. Can the secretary of state assure the House and all Canadians that the government remains committed to human rights in China and, in particular, that the pursuit of our expanding trade links with China will be used as a way to advance human rights in that country?

[Pharmaceuticals, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's drug regulation system exists to serve, protect and benefit all Canadians. We have a special responsibility toward those fighting life threatening diseases such as AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease and Parkinson's disease.

Many Canadians and many members of my constituency need compassionate access to experimental drugs which might arrest the progress of their illnesses. For them the emergency drug release program just is not working. They do not have the luxury of waiting for further tests. Their life expectancy is short and what time they have left will be in pain and mental anguish. Yet manufacturers often deny access to experimental drugs and there is no way to review or challenge that decision.

Time is of the essence. We owe it to those who are suffering today to provide them with the greatest assurance that their voice will be heard and that their access to needed drugs will only be denied for objectively determined and scientifically conclusive reasons.

A review of the drug approval system is currently under way. Fairness in emergency drug access must be a part of that study.

[Party Fundraising, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before delving into the substantive issues raised by this motion I would like to make a couple of general observations.

It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Richelieu chose in presenting his motion to make some disparaging remarks about the integrity of those who participate actively in the political process. For example, he made several references to greed, pay backs, conflict of interest, connections, access to the inner sanctum, smoke and mirrors, et cetera.

He also claimed that Canadian chartered banks "run political parties behind the scenes". Judging from the record and observation of the Canadian banks in the last few years, they have had enough problems running their own affairs without trying to run the political parties of this country as well.

Throwing aspersions on political parties, on members of Parliament and on those who make contributions to campaign funds does not advance the purpose of this debate. In fact such imprudent accusations reflect badly on the legitimacy and integrity of the House and its members, including the hon. member for Richelieu and the members of his party.

With respect to the issues raised in the course of the previous debate, I note that in presenting his motion the hon. member claimed that the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, known as the Lortie commission, hardly touched on the question of party financing.

It is important to set the record straight. The Lortie commission did look into all the issues raised in election financing. It looked into the question of financing registered political parties, limits on election expenses, public funding of election participants, disclosure of political contributions, political contributions and undue influence.

Three in depth studies were commissioned and published entitled "Money in Politics", "Provincial Party and Election Finance in Canada" and "Comparative Issues in Party and Election Finance".

The Lortie commission, therefore, was very well informed when it made the following recommendations: first, that there be no ban on political contributions from business, trade unions or other organizations except for political contributions from foreign sources.

In arriving at this conclusion the commission paid particular attention to the historical significance and importance of organizations such as unions and business in Canadian politics and to the danger of diverting funds from political parties to third parties. We have seen in previous elections where vast expenses were made by non-political parties in the political process.

Second, it pointed to the possible problem of charter challenges to such restrictions.

Third, the Lortie commission recommended that there be no limits on the size of contributions to registered political parties. In deciding this the Lortie commission found that there was "an absence of any compelling evidence that the number and value of large contributions to federal parties and candidates raise serious concerns about undue influence".

I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Surrey North. I am sure she was inspired by a sincere desire and interest in the political system. However, I suggest that a thorough examination of this subject by an independent inquiry looked into the matter and found there was no suggestion of the influence that seemed to trouble the last speaker in the House. Further, the Lortie commission concluded that it would be very difficult to enforce such limits.

We have seen other jurisdictions where such unenforceable or difficult to enforce limits run into problems and bring the whole of the political system into disrepute.

I am sure that Bloc members are aware of the problem in France arising from the funding of policical parties. Limits were set, but no pertinent regulations were adopted. It is very important to analyse limits on contributions to ensure they are practical and applicable to individual cases.

During the last Parliament a special committee on electoral reform was struck to consider the Lortie commission's proposals. In the end the committee did not recommend limits on who could make donations and the maximum amount of such donations. I agree with the final decisions of the Lortie commission and the special committee.

The Canada Elections Act, as it stands, provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that our electoral system is fair and equitable. Notably there are controls on election expenditures. The transparency of political donations is assured in that registered political parties must provide an annual report setting out the amount of money received and the name of each donor who contributed more than $100.

I am of the view that these measures are more than sufficient to protect the integrity of the electoral system. We have a saying that it does no good to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. There is no question there are problems with electoral financing as there are problems with every aspect of the electoral system of the country.

These problems deserve careful, mature examination and reflection before coming to conclusions. I find that the conclusions in the Lortie commission respect those criteria. It is for that reason I cannot support the motion before the House.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit reluctantly and a bit, if I may say, obscenely, that I would ask the following question to the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, because of the horror and the deep sadness of the intolerable events that are occurring in Rwanda. It is really hard for us, here, in this House, to imagine the situation out there. Let us just think about the 1,500 Rwanda nationals who live here, in Canada, and fear for the life of their families and friends.

I know the Canadian government is taking action in this very difficult situation. I asked the minister the other day if it was not possible to conceive of a surgical strike, a surgical operation whereby someone could go into Kigali and at least allow the innocent civilians who are trapped there in this incredible situation an escape route.

I asked the minister to use his best efforts to see whether through the United Nations this could be done. We have heard on the news that the United Nations is talking about this. Well, the talking is going on and the killing is going on.

We know that this situation requires a regional solution. We know that the Organization for African Unity is there. The Organization of African Unity needs some political will behind it. The Canadian government has earned a great deal of respect and goodwill in Africa. It can provide a political impetus to the process. It can also provide logistical support to the process.

What is being done at this time to try to resolve this situation? I have spoken of a surgical operation and providing the logistical and political motivation to the Organization of African Unity so it is able to step forward. We can give it the strength, give it the ability to carry out an operation which only it can achieve.

I would like to end my question, Madam Speaker, the way I started it. Africa is far away, but I believe that what we will do in this situation will determine how that Canada will respond in similar situations that are likely to occur in this more and more unstable and troubled world.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak in the House today on this debate on agricultural issues. I am conscious of the fact that I represent an urban riding but I remind the members of the House that not only are the members of urban ridings consumers of agricultural products but we are all interested in a healthy farm community.

It is in the interest of all of us and there are many of us in Rosedale riding, those for example who work at the University of Toronto in the research area and others, who make in their own way a contribution to the health of the important agricultural community in this country.

Since the last election probably the single most important and dominant issue for our government for Canada's agri-food industry has been international trade. That is a matter of great concern to the foreign affairs and international trade committee of which I happen to be the vice-chairman. As was pointed out by the members for Haldimand-Norfolk, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Peace River this has been a very intense and challenging period in that area.

I think it is important for us to bear in mind that 1.5 million Canadians, that is one in five, depend directly on exports for

their livelihood. Trade in goods and services is equal almost to half our GDP and in the agri-food sector for every dollar that is earned at the farm gate exports generate about 45 cents.

Mr. Speaker, international trade in this sector has become increasingly important for the province of Quebec. In 1991, exports from this province amounted to 9 per cent of the Canadian total. Today they are 13 per cent, an increase of 49 per cent, for a total value of 1.8 billion Canadian dollars.

Exports to the United States are extremely important and new markets and new jobs will arise from our entry into new international markets. Although we are presently engaged in difficult negotiations with the United States over trade in some agri-food products which we hope to resolve over the coming months, the bulk of our trade remains free of dispute and continues to expand. Once a settlement with the United States is reached we will have a more secure environment in which all sectors can plan for the future.

I would like to take the opportunity today to look at some of the impacts of the new trading arrangements and how our government is working to assist Canada's agri-food sector with its market development activities.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has forecast that the new GATT agreement will give the Canadian economy an additional $8 billion boost by the year 2002. This government is determined to ensure that Canada's agri-food sector is a major participant in that economic growth.

The new development brings agriculture under effective trade rules for the first time in history and will ensure that these rules apply equally to all countries. Under the GATT as a result of the Uruguay round members have agreed to cut agri-food export subsidies by 21 per cent by volume and 36 per cent by value over six years. Export subsidy programs like the European Communities' CAP and the U.S. export enhancement program which the member for Haldimand-Norfolk referred to this afternoon are curtailed and international grains and oilseed prices will gradually rise.

It is hard to describe the importance of these changes. The anomalies that were created by agricultural subsidies in world trade were absolutely extraordinary. We had this crazy situation in the United States for example in which its export subsidies encouraged its farmers to export wheat to Turkey. The Turks, not being crazy, turned this wheat into pasta and sent it back to the United States which then competed with the pasta manufacturers in the United States which had to import Canadian wheat. Meanwhile Canadians were selling subsidized wheat to Italy which the Italians were turning into pasta and shipping back to Canada.

These anomalies created by subsides riddled agricultural trade. They have to some extent been brought under discipline under the new GATT rules. The importance of this cannot be under emphasized.

In that context we have to recognize that our supply management system which will be preserved as a result of our high tariffs came under attack under article XI, but this government was able to negotiate those high protective tariffs which will preserve the benefits of our farm management system.

As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out we do not live in an isolated world. We are one member of the GATT and 115 other members insisted that we change from the type of quotas which we had used up to this time to a new and different type of system.

This government recognizes that changes will be needed. Changes will be needed to help the sector. To this end, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is heading a six member federal-provincial industry task force on orderly marketing. Its mandate is to consult with all supply management stakeholders to identify the issues that need to be addressed and suggest co-operative decision making processes to deal with those in anticipation of the GATT implementation in 1995.

Amendment to the GATT rules will allow for more competition. But of themselves the rules will not ensure that we take advantage of those markets. We have to work for those markets and this government recognizes that. To help the agri-food sector capitalize on these advantages, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a new branch, market and industry services, with offices in all of the provinces. This branch is specifically designated to work with the industry on enhancing its global competitiveness and increasing its share of domestic and international markets.

As well, the federal government has 55 trade commissioners and commercial officers working on agri-food trade and developing more than 150 foreign markets. This includes 18 agri-food specialists, five of whom were recently named to our diplomatic posts in Taipei, Seoul, Singapore, Osaka and Mexico City.

Here at home, an agri-food industry council will be established to advise on all matters related to improving Canada's market position, promoting economic growth and creating jobs.

In addition, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be working with other federal departments and the provinces to establish a single window marketing service for Canadian industry. This

will help facilitate access to programs such as the new getting ready to go global program, which gives cost shared assistance to food and beverage processors in developing competitiveness strategies and initiatives, and the agri-food industry marketing strategy program which helps agri-food associations develop and implement marketing plans.

The government's plan is to concentrate marketing on those areas of the globe which have the greatest potential for economic growth and market expansion in the future. In that context, the government is putting particular emphasis on the Asia Pacific and Mexican markets.

The minister of agriculture and the Governor General are presently on a trip to China and to Asia with industry representatives to sell our agricultural products. I hope, having heard the member for Peace River today speak of the importance of international trade in agricultural products, he may bring some discipline to bear on the member for Wild Rose when he questions the costs of these trips and the Governor General attending when important marketing initiatives can be made by such initiatives.

The Asia Pacific region is the fastest growing economic region in the world and it offers tremendous opportunities for Canadian agri-food exporters. This government intends to exploit that market and is doing so at this time. This represents a potential for jobs. They are good jobs, high paying jobs based on real markets in a growing part of the world.

Jobs, Mr. Speaker and other members of the House, I remind you, in the export area involve not only the farm marketers themselves but support services, banking and other areas, which those who live in urban communities benefit from as well. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Asia today and 15 leaders in the agri-food sector thought it was important enough to be there with him.

With growing access to new markets around the world, it is clear that the future of Canada's agri-food industry is full of opportunities, the opportunity for growth and opportunity to contribute to economic activity and jobs in all parts of the country.

By working in close co-operation with the provinces, industry and other stakeholders, and by continuing to support the trade and marketing initiatives of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other federal departments I am confident that we can help the industry make Canada agriculture and agri-food number one in the world.

In so doing, we will be ensuring not only the wellbeing of our farm community but the overall economic health of our country which includes important interests in our urban community as well.

[Rwanda, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it concerns Rwanda.

Canada's reputation in Africa is very good. Therefore, why not use our good offices with international institutions, particularly the Organization of African Unity, to establish a humanitarian corridor and allow the 20,000 people currently stranded in Kigali to leave and seek refuge in Tanzania, until the situation stabilizes and the slaughter ends?

[Evergreen Foundation, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is Earth Week and on behalf of an organization that is very active in my riding of Rosedale I would like to introduce to the House an important environmental education initiative.

The schoolground naturalization program is a national program of the Evergreen Foundation designed to transform schoolgrounds into natural outdoor classrooms. Many schools across Canada are presently landscaped with asphalt and concrete playing fields and are surrounded by institutional fencing. They look more like parking lots or prisons than schools.

These areas provide little educational value, few community advantages and no environmental or health benefits. Schoolgrounds need to be changed. They must become learning grounds by adding natural areas.

We must better understand the importance of creating better learning environments for our children and work to change our schoolgrounds from bleak expanses of concrete to areas of environmental significance and educational value.

This program of the Evergreen Foundation is doing that. I urge other members to support this initiative in their areas.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate and the review which it launches will be among one of the most important tasks which Parliament will face in the upcoming term.

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate and to be a part of the process of this review as vice-chairman of the foreign affairs and international trade committee under the direction of the chairman, the member for Ottawa-Vanier.

The minister and others who have spoken before me have set out the broad policy issues which we must examine in this review. Having listened to them I will not repeat their points. My contribution to this debate will be more modest. I hope to add some personal reflections which will highlight the considerations which I believe will be relevant to this review.

When my former colleague on the faculty of the University of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan, coined the phrase "the global village" which was used tonight in this debate, it seemed like an exaggeration but developments since that time have made that statement resonate more truthfully.

My own professional experience prior to being elected to this House led me to work and teach in many countries, the United States, Africa, the Middle East, China and Latin America. In the course of my work it became quite clear to me why it was a Canadian who came up with the phrase global village.

Unlike our neighbours to the south, Canadians have long been conscious of our place in the world. We are more dependent on other nations and peoples by virtue of our trade. Thirty per cent of our economy is dependent on our exports.

We are more aware of the outside world by virtue of the great number of new Canadians who have retained the diversities of their culture while at the same time contributing to our unique Canadian identity.

Our outside activities to which some of the other speakers in the House tonight have referred have brought consciousness to Canadians of the importance of our participation in the United Nations and other peacekeeping activities.

We are also aware, I dare suggest, of the nature of the world outside because of the federal institutions which have allowed in this country a realistic and flexible sharing of powers between various levels of government, a federal arrangement which I would suggest is compared and analysed as a model in many other places in the world, particularly the European union which is now examining how to deal with exactly that problem and also the problem of globalization which was referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier today.

When we look at our great cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, we see features which make them in and of themselves global players by virtue of their trade and communication links, the diversity of their populations and their existing and future infrastructure.

Canadians are interested in and determined to fashion a foreign policy which will determine the place which this country and they themselves will take in a rapidly evolving world.

Canadians are aware of the fact that the former distinction that prevailed between foreign and domestic policy objectives have been blurred. As the Minister for International Trade put it this morning there has been a blurring of these distinctions or as my colleague at the University of Toronto, Sylvia Ostry, puts it "there is nothing more domestic than international trade policy" a matter which we learned in this House when the matter of article XI of the GATT was discussed with great intensity early on in your term, Mr. Speaker, and in my first term in this House.

We learned it in the 1988 election when people said to me that international affairs are not of interest to the people of Canada.

Then we were into an election on an international agreement. The 1988 election was fought on an international agreement which had incredible domestic political consequences. It was the failure of the government of the day to recognize the importance of those domestic consequences that caused them to lose the last election.

In this party we did not lose that perspective. We always argued in favour of a coherent policy, the need for domestic adjustment policies, to accompany the international economic reality that was being imposed by that agreement. I and other Canadians look forward to having the chance to focus on how our domestic and international policies will be co-ordinated. We will have many chances to do so in the House.

The first speech I had an opportunity to make in the House was on social policy review. There was some question as to what it had to do with international affairs. Even a matter seemingly as domestic as social policy review must be considered in light of the international reality in which we live. If we believe in globalization we cannot formalize social policies which do not take that reality into account.

Next month there will be a labour market summit in the United States led by the President of the United States in which we will be participating. Labour policies will shortly be on the list of issues to be co-ordinated along with many other issues, if

we are to survive in this integrated world in which we are going to live.

As Canadians we must participate in these activities and ensure that our values are reflected in the social charters which will arise in the NAFTA, GATT and World Trade Organization if we are to avoid having solutions imposed upon us from outside. We have a population uniquely qualified in the world to participate in this discussion. This has been brought home to me many times since the election, but I would like to cite a couple of examples.

Recently a constituent of Vietnamese descent from Rosedale came to my Hill office. He was a refugee to this country of only a few years who now has a successful business. He came to say that he had been to the Vietnamese embassy. He wants to get back to Vietnam. He wants to get trade going with Vietnam. He speaks the language and he knows the culture. He is eager and many of his colleagues are eager. With that eagerness comes some extraordinary opportunities. As the secretary of state for Asian affairs said today, we must take a pragmatic approach to human rights when we are looking at these issues.

My friend who came to speak to me in my office is anxious to go back and trade with Vietnam, not only for the commercial purposes that will enable him to do so but because it will enable him to bring some form of relief to the family and friends he left and to encourage an evolution of human rights in that country which he believes will benefit everyone.

We need to have mechanisms in place that will facilitate that reform. It will be our job in committee to examine and to ensure that when the day is done the Government of Canada has created the instruments necessary to enable people like the constituent of whom I spoke to participate in the world in a way that would enrich him, enrich us and enrich the world.

That example is not just one of commerce. I was at a conference at the University of Ottawa last week. I learned that traces of the pollution being produced in the Sea of China, adjacent to Vietnam, are actually being found in our Arctic waters. If we do not trade with Vietnam, if we do not send our expertise there, if we do not deal with the problems of pollution in Vietnam, it is not a Vietnamese pollution problem we will have; it is a Canadian Arctic pollution problem that we will have. We must address this issue. We have the means and we can contribute to finding a solution.

There are Chinese Canadians and Filipino Canadians. I do not mean to hyphenate the term Canadian, but there are Canadians from every walk of life who have experience outside this country that they are eager to bring to bear to enrich the country and to enrich our experience. Those people are insisting we craft or create a truly Canadian foreign policy which reflects our values and impresses our neighbours. They also recognize that our neighbours have an interest in us.

Recently I had the privilege of going to Vancouver with a parliamentary delegation. Some members of the House were also on that trip. As I sat in a helicopter flying over Clayoquot Sound looking at clear-cuts with a communist deputy from Sardinia on my left and an English MEP on my right, I said to myself: "What am I doing looking at clear cutting in Clayoquot Sound with these gentlemen?" One might ask: "What business is it of theirs?" The fact of the matter is that they were saying they were not going to buy our tree products if they did not come over to Canada and become satisfied as to how we were doing business.

We can say we do not like it, but it is a fact of the new life. We can call it a loss of sovereignty if we like, but the lesson we learned from that trip was the following. We agreed with those people in the end that we should create an international agreement which would set up objective rules, which would lay out an objective and a scientific way in which we could determine whether or not clear cutting was being properly conducted, whether or not we were being environmentally safe.

That is the way we will have to go in the future. We will have to craft rules and we will have to craft institutions. Nowhere will it be more important in the matter of institutions than in dealing with our neighbours to the south, the United States of America. I will leave you, Mr. Speaker, with this last thought: Nowhere would I suggest we must be more vigilant in ensuring that we have proper institutions than when dealing with our neighbours to the south.

In that respect we had an interesting witness before the parliamentary committee last night who told us a very important truth. He said the United States was a great nation and it did not respect servile allies. It respects those who stand up for their rights.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will craft an independent foreign policy. That independence is not just because we want it as Canadians. It is also the best strategy to pursue in dealing with an ally like the United States which is powerful and strong but willing to respect the strong opinions of others.

In conclusion, we live in an interdependent world. We have in our own ridings, each one of us here, the expertise and knowledge of Canadians. John Polanyi was speaking on peacekeeping just two nights ago in my riding. All of us in the House have a great wealth of expertise in our ridings.

As a member of the committee I look forward to an opportunity of hearing from Canadians. In so doing we will learn about ourselves and how we can best contribute to a peaceful, sustain-

able, prosperous world which we now share with those who were once foreigners but today are our neighbours.