Eleni Bakopanos

[Crimes Against Humanity, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine honour for me to address the House today in support of this important motion. I commend my colleague, Mr. Assadourian, the member for Don Valley North, on his initiative.

The twentieth century has seen two world wars and numerous historic conflicts, but crimes against humanity are still not relegated to the past, atrocities are still committed daily in too many countries, where civilians are subject to torture, enslavement and mass deportation. Every day, we witness the persecution of minorities because of political beliefs, race or religion. Although the Geneva Convention condemns such actions, they continue to take place.

Motion No. 282, introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley North, will bring Canada, as a member of the international community, one step closer to helping to eradicate from our world these unacceptable acts.

It is essentially a moral question that we ask. Can we continue to be an active member of the international community and allow these atrocities to continue? I think not. We must first be able to internationally acknowledge that atrocities against humanity are unacceptable, then allow for the legislation to follow.

As representatives of a country renowned for its support of human rights, we know that Canadians condemn genocide and the use of violence as an instrument of power. By not recognizing such actions for what they are, we support them as national policy.

It is a sad commentary that the media too often still can look to the horrors of crimes against humanity for their headlines.

A brief historical overview of only a few of these acts will give everyone the proof they need to acknowledge that these acts are criminal and should be condemned.

The Armenian genocide which took place during the first world war is perhaps the most vivid example of genocide as an instrument of national policy by the Ottoman Turks. What makes the Armenian genocide such a particular example is that unlike the genocide of the Jewish people which took place during the second world war, the international community did not try the war criminals or even formally acknowledge the massacre took place.

While several countries such as Italy, France and Israel have passed parliamentary decrees formally recognizing the Armenian genocide, the international community as a whole has not taken the steps necessary to condemn these horrible acts of inhumanity. There are unfortunately many examples of such atrocities, some well known, others such as the Asia Minor catastrophe of 1922, not so well known.

By the end of the first world war there were close to two million Greeks inhabiting the region of Asia Minor on the west coast of present day Turkey. The Greek population has lived in this region for over 3,000 years. In 1922, these people, like the Armenians and other minorities of Turkey, were subjected to the first ethnic cleansing of the 20th century.

During the summer of the tragic year, 600,000 Greeks of Asia Minor were exterminated by the forces of Mustapha Kemal, the father of modern Turkey. Another 1.5 million people were forced to leave their ancestral homes and then dubbed as refugees in Greece. These acts were not sporadic or spontaneous but a cold, calculated policy of the new Turkish state to establish an ethnically pure population. In this orchestrated act of mass murder, the Turkish government also burnt and destroyed thousands of churches, schools, even cities and towns that were identified with the Ioanian Greeks.

These atrocities were witnessed by foreign diplomats, correspondents and thousands of individuals from every walk of life. The international community did nothing to condemn the atrocities taking place.

Although the United States, Britain, France and Italy had ships and troops stationed on the coast of Asia Minor, they refused to intervene. The failure of these countries to condemn the actions of the Turkish government encouraged other states to practise genocide as government policy. The Holocaust of the second world war offers the most graphic example of inhumanity by a modern state.

In 1974, Turkey once again embarked on a course of action that led to the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. Once again the cycle of violence and destruction was an integral part of the Turkish policy. Thousands were killed during the invasion and approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to abandon their homes and become refugees in their own country.

I had the occasion to visit Cyprus this past January with some of my colleagues. We witnessed firsthand what is the reality of the Cypriots living in Cyprus. Over 1,600 missing persons are still unaccounted for.

Turkey was condemned by the international community but except for peacekeeping, no action was taken to force the Turkish government to withdraw its occupation forces. Instead, the government in Ankara proceeded to establish a puppet

Cypriot-Turkish state and transplant thousands of Anatolian Turks to increase artificially the Turkish population of Cyprus.

In northern Cyprus the Ankara government has made every effort to erase any traces of Cypriot cultural identity. This has not only destroyed the economy of northern Cyprus, it has practically eliminated the cultural heritage of the Greek-Cyriot community, a community that had developed a unique identity among the people of the Middle East and Asia. What was once a prosperous region and home to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the northern part of the island has become an economic and cultural wasteland.

Unchecked aggression only leads to further acts of barbarism and genocide. That is why we must all lend our support to Motion No. 282. In the last four years, we have witnessed the cataclysm that has befallen the former Yugoslavia. All the warring factions are guilty of mass killings, ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide to varying degrees but the cycle of violence has not stopped. We only need to look at the mass murders that have taken place in Somalia and Rwanda to confirm the fact.

I add that as recently as two weeks ago, Turkey was bombing the Kurdish minorities in the northern part of Turkey. In all of these examples, the killing, destruction and forcible movement of populations have been acts of deliberate policy and not random excesses of rebel or uncontrolled government forces.

By acknowledging these historical examples as crimes against humanity, we are acknowledging that past and present crimes are unacceptable. We must do our part as parliamentarians to encourage the international community to make greater efforts and prevent future crimes against humanity.

By passing this motion, we are one step closer. In addition I ask the hon. members to adopt this motion with the amendment as a votable motion.

[Greek Independence Day, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend a sea of Greek, Canadian and Quebec flags flooded my riding of Saint-Denis as over 50,000 Canadians of Greek origin celebrated Greek Independence Day.

It was a tremendous turnout with people from every generation dressed in national costume in celebration of their rich

heritage. It was also a day to be proud that we live in a country that recognizes the significant contributions that Canadians of Greek origin have made over the years.

We live in a country that celebrates its diversity and for which it has become the envy of the world.

We are all lucky to live in a country where diversity is something to celebrate. I think I speak for all Canadians of Greek extraction who want to continue to live and participate fully in the development of a country like Canada, an example to the world of generosity and open-mindedness.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek.]

[English]

[Rail Transport, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is continuing to do its blocking job in order to prevent the government from passing the back to work legislation for the rail industry quickly.

We must denounce this official opposition tactic because it is prolonging a dispute directly affecting thousands of Canadians, in addition to causing all regions of the country to lose great amounts of money.

Perhaps we should remind the Bloc Quebecois of its commitment to present and to defend in the House the report which the organization Rural Dignity made public on June 16. That report said that railway links are not a privilege but a right. The organization said that the railway is a tool needed to maintain and develop the regions.

It is time for the Bloc to be true to its words and to stop blocking this legislation.

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, March 31 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a day that challenges all people and their governments to take a stand against racism and racial discrimination.

In a pluralistic society such as ours, racism is one of the most destructive forces preventing people of all origins from sharing equally in the country's prosperity.

Canada is a country built on diversity. Young adolescents in my riding have understood this message clearly, and this is why I would like to draw attention to their efforts to promote cross-cultural dynamics. I am speaking of the Multi Media group, which, next Saturday, will present original works, such as poems, drawings, choreographies, photographs and songs reflecting their hope of living in a racism free world.

Whether we are going to live with each other in compassionate understanding and mutual harmony and then in collective prosperity is a matter that will be decided in the future by our actions today.

I urge all members of the House to join with me in carrying this message to the people of Canada.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased about this question. At least we can stick to the facts about how far women have come in terms of economic equality.

I want to bring to the attention of the member that Pierrette Leroux, who is the executive vice-president of the CFIB, said there is no doubt that women are penalized by banks and financial institutions. In fact, she called it financial sexism.

As this government has said, unless we can take care of our financial house, no one will be able to benefit from the resources we have, including women. When we talk about interest rates, we have proven by the budget we put forward, and the whole economic community agrees with us, that Canada is on the right track. Once we continue with the initiatives we have set forth in the budget, then hopefully we will move even closer to economic equality for women and all Canadians.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Definitely. I spent 15 years working with Quebec politics and I see no progress for women if we constantly talk about separation, if we constantly talk about dissolving the country.

We have often said on this side of the House the worse way to advance the cause of women is by focusing on the issue of separation and not focusing on the issue at hand, assuring economic and social equality to women.

It is very unusual that members on the other side of the House talk about solidarity among women and yet they cannot talk about solidarity of all Canadians. We have to start by being united and have a united front to attack some of the problems that face women and men.

Women's issues are not simply women's issues. They are societal issues. We must work together in a united Canada to be able to ensure that women progress both socially and economically.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending the hon. member for Québec for giving the elected members of this House an opportunity to debate a most important and relevant issue, in my opinion.

In my capacity as member of Parliament, I would like to draw attention to the fine job done by several organizations in my riding, non-governmental organizations of course, who work with women. I have already done so at a brunch to which I invited them on Friday to mark progress toward equality.

In light of the theme for the next world conference on women for equality-there certainly was some discussion on the subject-I would like to congratulate them again, as I did on Monday.

Last week, on International Women's Day, the Prime Minister summed up quite eloquently the role and contribution of Canadian women. I think it is important that all members of this House, both men and women, know what he said in essence.

"Today, said the Prime Minister, more women work in a broader variety of areas in which they have more influence on the decision-making process than at any other time in our history. And we have every reason to be thrilled about this. As we approach full gender equality, we are strengthening our society and opening new horizons for all Canadians. In Canada, women are making progress toward economic equality. Relying on their own means and abilities, women help shape the future of this country." Not only that of one province, I might add. "As for the Canadian government, it is meeting the challenge. Women's equality is not a matter of special interests or rights, but rather a matter of social and economic justice, a matter of good government".

This message is an inspiration to each and every one of us. It sets the role and contribution of Canadian women in the right perspective.

It is undeniable that we have made progress, by dint of hard work and often courage. But this progress does not benefit only women. It benefits the whole of our society.

This is because women's issues are everyone's issues. They are societal issues. They touch every single citizen.

We need to leave behind the cliché battle of the sexes where women's gains are interpreted as men's losses. We have to accept that when women advance toward equality everyone benefits. It is purely mathematical. When women, who make up 52 per cent of the population, are able to make a full contribution to society, 100 per cent of the population benefits.

What surprises me is the motion tabled this morning by the Bloc Quebecois member. The hon. member obviously does not realize that the best way to help women is first to be a good government.

She should know that by creating 433,000 jobs in one year, the Canadian government makes a concrete contribution to women's economic equality. The member should also know that by putting our fiscal house in order, we protect our prosperity, our social programs and our quality of life, something which equally benefits Canadian women and men.

The motion we are debating today talks about concrete action. Here are some examples of specific actions taken by this government. The job training and illiteracy programs provide women with some of the tools for greater economic independence. By combining these tools with job creation the government can help women access a full range of choices in their lives.

Our initiatives for small business, including improved access to capital, will help women entrepreneurs and create a climate more conducive to the creation of jobs for both women and men.

The Employment Equity Act improves the employment opportunities for women. Youth Service Canada, a new strategic measure, helps to put out of school and unemployed young people of both sexes back to work. The infrastructure program has funded projects such as the rehabilitation of a children's centre, the construction of community health centres, libraries, municipal day care centres and shelters. All of these are very concrete initiatives to help women achieve economic equality.

To be a good government also means adjusting our structures to make them simpler and more efficient.

This is why my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, announced earlier this week the merging of three organizations dedicated to promoting women's equality.

As part of its program review process, the government examined the role of Status of Women Canada, of the Equal Opportunities for Women Program at the Department of Human Resources Development, and of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

It became clear that these three structures promote women's equality and, to various degrees, conduct research and work in close co-operation with women's groups.

Consequently, the government concluded that the best way to improve efficiency was to consolidate its initiatives to promote women's equality under the structure of Status of Women Canada.

This means that the Equal Opportunities for Women Program will be transferred to Status of Women Canada.

As well, the research, communication and public information functions of the advisory council will become part of the routine operations of Status of Women Canada. This transfer will enable us to better manage the human and financial resources involved, eliminate duplication, and put an end to political appointments. These are all measures which the Bloc Quebecois keep asking us to take as a government.

This will help us create a "one-stop shopping" operation; to eliminate confusion and improve access to the government; to improve research, communications and public information services; to strengthen links with local, regional and national women's groups, NGOs and universities; to ensure that funding for independent research is available; and to allow the federal government to focus its efforts toward promoting equality for women. These are tangible actions, not only words. This is a series of dynamic and realistic initiatives, which, put together, help Canadian women to progress towards social and economic equality.

Also, I want to mention that this government managed to take measures when it elected-or appointed, as the opposition would say-qualified women to positions in this House. I think significant progress was made when more women were elected to this House. This is one of many ways to ensure that women are on the road to economic and social equality.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am working for solidarity among all Canadians and, on this side of the House, we have shown that we encourage women to run for elections and get elected. Look at the number of women in the two opposition parties.

But I have a question to ask. We talk about solidarity with regard to legislation. The government recently introduced Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. We asked for the support of the members opposite. I believe that this bill will give women new opportunities to achieve economic equality. Why did the other parties refuse us their support?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has made some remarks that I find very curious coming from her.

Firstly, she talks about solidarity and she belongs to a party that does not promote solidarity among all Canadians, including women. Secondly, with regard to solidarity, we have, on this side of the House, all the women who represent the government who have proven that they are in favour of solidarity. For example, on March 8 of last year, we opened a debate to all women on both sides of the House.

Now, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. She gave the example of a woman who had come to her office complaining that she did not have access to government programs. Does the member not know that our budget provides for transfers to the provinces so that they can assume responsibility for these programs? They will be the ones who will be delivering these programs. That is what the member's party asked for and that is what we are doing. We both know that when women achieve economic equality, they will have equality in all areas. My question to the hon. member is this: Does she agree with me with regard to transfers?

[Unemployment Insurance, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Canadians and, more specifically, Quebecers, have been telling us they want more effective programs and an end to overlap and duplication with the provinces.

What steps has the minister taken through the Unemployment Insurance Program to eliminate wasteful spending of public funds?