Eleni Bakopanos

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. In fact, we have responded and made changes to employment insurance in the past three years. We have invested in excess of $500 million in Quebec for that very purpose.

We have made changes relating to the small weeks, enabling people to take part time jobs. The intensity rule has been abolished, the length of the benefit period increased, and the average weekly benefits raised by about 9%. We continue to make changes, as the minister has already said here in the House.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are not playing with the lives of seasonal workers. Exactly, we have brought changes to EI over the years, in fact, and we will continue to bring changes, as the hon. Prime Minister said the other day and as the minister has said. We will continue to improve the EI system, especially for seasonal workers, but we are also working with our partners to make sure that we have employment in those regions. This government has a track record on employment.

[Social Economy, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, I had the pleasure of presiding the national round table on the social economy hosted by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, in my role as the parliamentary secretary with special responsibility for the social economy.

The national round table discussion allowed me to meet with various stakeholders from across the country. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to work with them and receive their views on key social economic issues.

Comments by such participants as Nancy Neamtam, from the Chantier de l'économie sociale du Québec, Rupert Downing, from the Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet), David Driscoll, from the VanCity Community Foundation in British Columbia, Réjean Laflamme, from the Conseil canadien de la coopération, and many others, will enable us to refine our strategy to encourage even more growth in the social economy in coming years.

Our government and our Prime Minister are committed to the social economy. We will continue to build on the measures announced in the Speech from the Throne and in budget 2004 in order to achieve our common goal of building communities rich in social assets.

[Children, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, young children who get a good start in life are prepared to learn when they start school and then go on to become healthy and productive adults.

In my riding of Ahuntsic, the Association de gardiennage d'Ahuntsic, La Rose éclose and the Institut de formation et d'aide communautaire à l'enfance et à la famille are just three of the numerous community organizations working in early childhood education and family services. I was there to honour them last week during volunteer week.

The Liberal government supports healthy child development through: providing funds for the Canadian Prenatal Nutritional Program, the Community Action Program for Children and the Aboriginal Head Start Program; investing $500 million annually to help Canadian families access prenatal programs, early childhood education, child care and parent resource centres; and providing an estimated $520 million a year in tax relief to parents for child care.

Our Liberal government believes that giving children a good start in life is one of the most important investments we can make. We are proud to help at such an important time, at the beginning of one's life.

[The Armenian People, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour for me today to speak once again in this House in support of this important motion put forward by my colleague.

I must admit that I am very happy about how much progress the Armenian cause has made since I have been in this House.

I have always been pleased to speak in favour of motions that have been presented in the House of Commons urging parliamentarians to recognize the Armenian genocide because I truly believe that we must all seek to do good by recognizing a wrong and speaking against it.

More important, however, I chose to speak today because I wish to assure the survivors of the Armenian genocide, who I have personally met in Montreal and in my constituency, that I want to ensure that they leave this life knowing that people like we parliamentarians in the House of Commons are fighting for recognition and closure to the horrors they lived and witnessed firsthand and that have haunted them all their lives. I have looked into their eyes and they are only asking for us to acknowledge what happened and to call it by its rightful name, the Armenian genocide.

We want to assure them that the Turkish government will recognize the Armenian genocide and other atrocities and move toward reconciliation, which we all want in the future.

The 20th century has seen two world wars and numerous historical conflicts. In spite of this, crimes against humanity are not a thing of the past but continue to be daily occurrences in too many countries, countries which routinely practice torture, slavery, and the massive deportation of their civilian population.

Everyday, we witness the persecution of minorities on the basis of their political opinion, race or religion.

To this day, these unacceptable acts of inhumanity continue, despite the fact that the Geneva convention condemns such actions. Even though the international community has admitted that these acts should not be practised, we are still a long way from achieving this goal. Present events attest to similar acts and cry out for our vigilance.

The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, designed specifically to prosecute high ranking Nazis for the atrocities that had occurred during World War II, tried for the first time those guilty of committing crimes against humanity. These crimes were defined in article 6 of the London charter and included murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war or persecution on political, racial and religious grounds.

While not all criminals have been tried, the international community recognizes the holocaust and commemorates it every year, as we did in Canada last week, so that everyone around the world will remember this tragedy to ensure that it will never occur again. Regardless of this, we still live in a world where ethnic cleansing is practised, the most recent examples being the former republics of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

While these atrocities are some examples of crimes committed against humanity, there are unfortunately many others, both past and present. Some are well known; others, such as the Asia Minor catastrophe of 1922, are not so well known.

At the end of the first world war, close to two million Greeks were living in a region of Asia Minor on the west coast of modern Turkey. Greeks had been living in that region for over 3,000 years. In 1922, these people, like the Armenians and other Turkish minorities, were the victims of the first ethnic cleansing operation of the 20th century.

The Armenian genocide, which took place around the time of 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 that took place during the second world war, the international community did not try the war criminals or even formally acknowledge that this massacre took place.

The United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide describes genocide as, “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Clearly, this definition applies in the case of the atrocities committed against the Armenians.

Because the UN convention was adopted in 1948, 30 years after the Armenian genocide, Armenians worldwide have sought from their respective governments formal acknowledgment of the crimes committed during World War I. Countries like France, Argentina, Greece, Russia, Sweden, Italy and Belgium have officially recognized the Armenian genocide.

On November 28, 2003, the Quebec national assembly passed a motion put forward by Yvan Bordeleau, my own representative there, declaring an Armenian genocide commemoration day. I greatly appreciate the efforts he has made in the 10 years we have been working together.

Thanks to our collective efforts in advancing the Armenian cause, we are reminding the international community that these types of tragic historical events cannot simply be forgotten or denied. It is my hope that the international community as a whole will take the necessary steps to condemn these horrible acts of inhumanity and recognize the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Turks for what they were: a genocide.

Many countries such as Italy, France and Israel, have adopted parliamentary decrees officially recognizing the Armenian genocide.

Why, people may ask, is it so important to recognize an event that occurred over 80 years ago? We must always remember that those who disregard history are condemned to repeat it. Let us just think about if the international community had reacted to this as it should have at the time. Would the atrocities of the second world war ever have taken place? Perhaps not.

During a debate in the House of Commons, the then secretary of state for central and eastern Europe and the Middle East reiterated the position of the Government of Canada, stating:

...we remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities which included massive deportations and massacres.

May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward world peace--

Although the federal government recognizes the genocide as a “calamity” and “tragedy”, many parliamentarians, including me, do not agree with this position and continue to work toward the recognition of the genocide.

I truly believe that by working together we can and will accomplish our goal of recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Government of Canada and eventually the government of Turkey. For this reason, I have been working closely with the Armenian community in Canada and with my colleagues from the House of Commons and the Senate to convince the Canadian government, my government, to recognize the Armenian genocide. I do it for those survivors and I do it for my constituents and all Canadians of Armenian origin.

Years of work and concerted efforts resulted in significant breakthroughs in 2002 for the Armenian cause, starting with the first ever Canadian parliamentary visit to Armenia in May 2002. I was honoured to have the opportunity to visit Armenia as a member of the delegation formed by the Canada-Armenia parliamentary friendship group. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Brampton Centre, who is a Canadian of Armenian origin born in Aleppo, Syria, has been the leading champion of this cause in the House. I want to congratulate him again.

This trip reinforced my already firm commitment to this cause, after having the opportunity to visit Yerevan, a museum commemorating the victims of the Armenian genocide, and to meet with several Armenian political representatives or colleagues. This parliamentary exchange was reciprocated, of course, by a visit to Canada last fall.

The Senate of Canada passed a motion on June 13, 2002, presented by my colleague and friend, the Hon. Shirley Maheu, calling on the Canadian government to officially recognize the word “genocide” rather than just calling the event “a crime against humanity” or “atrocity”, as was the case in a former resolution of the House of Commons.

Another very important step toward the recognition of the Armenian genocide came when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade passed a historic motion on November 27, 2002, calling on the House of Commons to recognize the Armenian genocide.

The member for Brampton Centre presented this motion, which reads as follows:

That the committee invite the House of Commons to recognise the genocide of Armenians, which began at the turn of the last century, by the Ottoman Turks, during the First World War.

We have done other things over the years to bring this issue to the forefront and make our colleagues recognize the importance of bringing resolution to this issue.

I invite all members of Parliament to support this. I certainly will be voting for it. Also, I am very proud to have in my riding of Ahuntsic a monument to the Armenian genocide and in fact to all genocides. It was constructed by the City of Montreal. I urge all my colleagues to support this very honourable effort by the member, who unfortunately will be leaving us and this House. I encourage all our colleagues to let justice be done and recognize a wrong.

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the people of Quebec will remember, but it is not motions that will get the ball rolling, it is action.

Action has already been taken with respect to seasonal workers. At this time, our departments are having discussions regarding the regions of Charlevoix and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, among others, specifically to find a strategy for lasting employment.

As for credibility with respect to employment, it is this government that has credibility.

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is action, not opposition motions, that will move things forward in this matter.

First, we have made changes with respect to employment, precisely to help seasonal workers. This government is committed to this, the Prime Minister is committed to it, and the minister responsible is committed to it. Moreover, we have already committed $500 million a year to find long-term solutions for the problem of seasonal workers. These are not motions.

[Softwood Lumber, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me once again state the government's commitment to finding a long term policy based resolution of this ongoing trade dispute which began following the expiry of the 1996 softwood lumber agreement in March 2001.

The Government of Canada has full confidence in the strategy followed to date to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry since the American industry began claiming that Canadian softwood lumber exports are unfair with regard to trade.

As we said earlier, after indepth consultations with the provinces and the industry, Canada adopted a two-fold strategy, based on both legal recourse and negotiations, in order to resolve this dispute.

Canada has put forward strong legal cases to defend against the punitive duties imposed on exports of softwood lumber to the United States. Since Canada initiated its legal challenges, NAFTA chapter 19 dispute settlement panels have ordered the U.S. to correct its flawed anti-dumping, countervailing duty and threat of injury determinations.

Pursuant to these panels' instructions, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued new anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations, which resulted in reducing the country-wide anti-dumping duty rate to 8.07% from 8.43%, and the countervailing duty rate to 13.23% from 18.79%.

However the government and other Canadian parties involved in these cases continue to believe that proper Department of Commerce determinations will find that Canadian softwood lumber exports are neither dumped nor subsidized. Consequently, Canadian parties have requested that a NAFTA panel review the Department of Commerce's remand countervailing duty determination.

On March 5, a NAFTA panel found that the U.S. Department of Commerce anti-dumping determination had no legal grounds in the U.S. and gave the latter new instructions to bring its determination in line with American law.

Furthermore, on December 15, in accordance with the NAFTA panel's instructions, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a remand determination, which reaffirmed its original finding that imports of Canadian softwood lumber threaten to injure the U.S. domestic industry.

This latest unsubstantiated determination has also been challenged by Canada, and the NAFTA panel is expected to issue its second report on April 30. There is a possibility that the panel will remand certain issues of the latest threat of injury determination back to the U.S. International Trade Commission with instructions to issue a new determination that is consistent with U.S. law.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission cannot sustain its threat of injury determination, then there will be no basis for the imposition of duties against Canadian softwood lumber exports. However, it is important to note that litigation in this case could last another year.

The World Trade Organization's appeals branch overruled the panel's conclusions on the determination of benefit in its report on the dispute over countervailing duties.

The appeals branch stated that it was possible to impose duties in very limited cases but that there was insufficient evidence to determine if the United States had grounds to do so in this case.

It is worth noting, however, that, in August 2003, a NAFTA panel found that the United States had no legal grounds for imposing duties to prove the existence of a benefit.

Furthermore, a WTO panel also submitted a confidential report on dumping in January. This report should be made public on April 13.

We are particularly pleased with the recent report on threat of injury which strongly supports Canada's position that our exports of softwood lumber do not threaten to injure the U.S. domestic industry. The WTO panel ruled in favour of Canada on the crucial issue that the ITC finding that imports of Canadian softwood lumber would increase substantially, thereby threatening to injure the U.S. industry is not one “that could be reached by an objective and unbiased investigating authority”. This was the key ITC finding supporting its “threat” determination.

However, while litigation in these cases is going well, it is important to remember it will be some time before we see final results. This round of NAFTA cases could continue into 2005 and the WTO cases could take until 2006 to implement. Challenges of the administrative review results could carry on well beyond that.

We have always stated that challenging U.S. actions before NAFTA and WTO panels is a long process. We fully expect the United States to continue to defend its countervailing duty, anti-dumping and threat of injury determinations. In recognition of this fact, Canada spared no efforts in its negotiations with the United States in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of this dispute.

Important progress has been made in laying the foundation for a lasting resolution to the dispute. The long-term political solution discussed with the United States over the past few years includes the publication of a policy bulletin by the U.S. Department of Commerce, to which the latter would refer in reviewing changes introduced by the provinces to their future forest management practices, which is what the U.S. countervailing duties are aimed at.

Such a review, if it were positive, would lead to the revocation of the countervailing duties for the province in question. The provinces are already making these changes, particularly British Columbia, which is well ahead of the others.

Also under discussion is a settlement that would replace the duties with a quota system, settle the litigation and allow provinces to pursue policy reform and achieve an exit from the quota. On December 6 the U.S. put forward terms for a settlement, which would provide a 31.5% market share to Canadian exporters of softwood lumber.

After extensive consultation with Canadian stakeholders, on January 12 we indicated to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans that provinces could not support the proposed terms for agreement, primarily because of the lack of a clear exit from the quota for provinces that successfully reform forest policy. Other concerns include the market share Canada would have under the agreement and the split of the deposits.

Since his meeting with Secretary Evans, the Minister of International Trade has travelled across the country to meet with industry associations in all major softwood exporting provinces and with various provincial governments to discuss the components of a counter proposal. On March 24 he spoke with provincial ministers. There is strong support for a negotiated solution, but there is also a preference for waiting until after the April 30, 2004 NAFTA panel report on threat of injury. In the meantime, Canada continues to pursue its legal challenges before the NAFTA and the WTO.

The Government of Canada, which is very aware of the repercussions of American duties on the Canadian industry, has already allocated $365 million to help workers, communities and associations affected by the softwood lumber dispute.

This money will be used for various purposes, such as helping affected communities diversify their economy; helping workers through training and work sharing programs; investing in research in order to make the forestry sector more competitive in the long term; funding research and development on softwood lumber; and taking measures to expand the markets.

The federal government's assistance includes: $71 million for measures to assist displaced workers; $110 million for a national softwood industry and community adjustment fund to support community economic development; $95 million in funding for softwood lumber research and development, market expansion initiatives and advocacy efforts; $20 million in advocacy efforts to inform the U.S. public of the impact of the U.S. duties on U.S. lumber consumers; and $14.85 million in assistance to Canadian lumber industry associations. The funding assists industry associations to operate effectively under the burden imposed by a softwood lumber dispute.

The government has continued to assist and take the right approach throughout this dispute. In our consultations with various stakeholders, we have explored all the feasible avenues and analyzed all the options available to us in the context of this dispute.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton North may not appreciate it this the same way I am going to say it, but I want to thank her for actually giving women parliamentarians a good name. She was alone for a long time and showed a lot of the qualities of leadership that it is necessary to show. We all know that the challenges for women parliamentarians are a lot greater--in my opinion after having been here for 10 years--than they are for some of our male colleagues, without any prejudice to any of my male colleagues.

I also want to thank the member because I think she is a role model in very many ways. I hope that other women will follow in her footsteps because they are very good footsteps to follow. I wish to thank her very much.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was referring to when I used some examples. The member has an example in his riding.

I am sure that every single member of Parliament has an example in his or her own riding although they may not know it. That was the idea when the Prime Minister gave me the mandate as parliamentary secretary with the special emphasis on social economy, which is a horizontal role, by the way, and does not belong to one ministry.

This is exactly what we want to do. We want to promote the community based businesses across the country. We want to create social cohesion by allowing people to improve their own situation by creating jobs for themselves or for other disadvantaged groups in society and, through that process, also leaving us with a better community.