Eleni Bakopanos

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

I find it unacceptable for the member to put words in my mouth when they are not true. Nobody said that on this side of the House, but maybe on the other side—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

No, I never said that. Madam Speaker, the hon. member must not put words in my mouth.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we are back to the same issue. The member asks me if they understood clearly. Yes, because I think federalists—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the only people who do not respect the intelligence and the rights of Quebecers are those who belong to the party sitting on the other side of the House and those who belong to the governing party in Quebec.

They talk about intelligence. Yes, people went out to vote. Thank God, people believe in the importance of their right to vote, and I will always defend that right.

The only people who are afraid are those in the Quebec government who do not dare ask a question such as the one proposed by Mr. Parizeau “Do you want to separate from Canada?” Negotiations are not the issue here.

We always said and the supreme court said that there will be negotiations if the question is clear and if there is a clear majority. Those are the two things upon which the supreme court insists, even before negotiations are undertaken. However, the members opposite are talking about two questions that were not clear.

This is not a poll by the Liberal Party. It is a general poll that was done before the 1995 referendum, and it showed that people believed that, after a yes vote, they would still be part of Canada and they would still use Canada's currency and have a Canadian passport, things the party opposite and the governing party in Quebec does not want.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fredericton.

This debate is important for the future of all of Canada. It is critical for me, my constituents and the future of our children, and this is why I want to be part of it.

We must ensure that the democratic interests of people in every province are respected, should there be a referendum process that could lead to secession.

For 25 years, I have been fighting the separatists who want to destroy my adopted country. This beautiful country allowed the daughter of immigrants, a Quebecer and a Canadian of Greek origin, to now be a member of this House and to represent her country all over the world.

The bill calls on the government “to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference”. If there is one thing that the supreme court insisted on, it was clarity.

Clarity is the cornerstone of any democratic process. Citizens must be in a position to understand the scope and the consequences of what they are voting for, and governments must be clear about the nature of the mandate they have been given. For that to happen what is at stake in a referendum must be clear to all. As the supreme court has pointed out, the political actors have a role to ensure that this requirement for clarity is respected.

It is a bit strange even to have a debate on the need for a clear question in a future referendum. I would have thought it was intuitively obvious, yet the separatists continue to harp on this and reproach us through ads that use children.

When I became a member of the House I never imagined for a moment that one day I would be reproached for caring too much about the fundamental component of democracy. After all, clarity is the first thing incumbent on all of us as parliamentarians.

The PQ government criticizes our alleged interference in the referendum process. We on this side of the House would by far prefer no referendum at all, since such a process can only be divisive.

However, the PQ government, in particular Premier Bouchard and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph Facal, keep repeating that such a referendum will take place during their government's current mandate.

Mr. Facal made it very clear when he said that, in his mind, there was no uncertainty whatsoever, adding that, every day, he works relentlessly to prepare for a winning referendum on sovereignty during his government's current mandate.

In light of the events that took place in Laval this past weekend, however, there seems to be some confusion among separatists. Some say that a referendum will be held during the current mandate, while others say it will be during the next mandate. Be that as it may, these people are arguing amongst themselves. They do not know when a referendum will be held, but they are trying to create, as they have always said, winning conditions, precisely so that they could then have a referendum.

Based on what Mr. Bouchard and the separatists, including their former leader, are saying, we are concerned that a referendum probably will be held.

We think that the question to be asked should be clear, and that Canada could not be divided without a clear majority of the people of a province having opted for separation; without their saying clearly that they want the province to no longer be a part of Canada. This stands to reason.

Let me read the following question, and tell me whether it is clear, because I do not think it is.

The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad—in other words, sovereignty—and, at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency. No change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be affected without the approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

That is not clear. That was the 1980 question. Now let us look at the 1995 question:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

That is the question with the partnership proposal that Mr. Bouchard later described as skeletal.

The separatist leaders have always tried to have Quebecers believe that the questions asked, both during the 1980 and the 1995 referendums, were clear. Let me clarify that in 1980, and again in 1995, Prime Minister Trudeau and our current Prime Minister clearly indicated that the questions posed to Quebecers were not clear and that they did not feel bound to negotiate because the questions were not clear.

The question in 1995, like the one in 1980, is convincing proof that we need a clear question. A poll conducted shortly before the referendum of October 30, 1995 revealed that 80% of Quebecers who were planning to vote yes believed that if the yes side won Quebec would continue to use the Canadian dollar and that economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged. Fifty per cent believed that they would continue to use the Canadian passport. Twenty-five per cent believed that Quebec would continue to elect members to the federal parliament. Another poll indicated that almost one out of five yes supporters believed that a sovereign Quebec could remain a province of Canada. If that is not cause for confusion I do not know what is.

This is the truth of the matter with respect to the so-called clarity of the question in 1995. I would remind those still unconvinced of the ambiguity surrounding that referendum of a statement made by their friend, Jacques Parizeau, in an open letter he sent to the Devoir last year. Mr. Parizeau said: “We have often been told that the 1995 question was not clear”. He is the one saying so. “It is true, as I have often said, that the question I would like to have asked was the following: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign or independent country effective—?”

One can be forgiven for wondering why Mr. Parizeau was not interested in this degree of precision when he took up his duties as Premier of Quebec and leader of the yes camp. But I will not get into that today.

Our government is duty bound not to undertake any negotiations that could lead to the separation of a province unless the voters of that province state clearly and democratically that they want to secede from Canada.

When we speak of voters I must speak on behalf of certain Quebecers who are often overlooked, ignored or even ridiculed by certain members of the opposition and by certain separatists in Quebec, unfortunately. I am one of those Quebecers who is not pure laine—not that I know what that means—and who, in the language of some separatists, should be excluded from their so-called democratic process. I will not quote a number of former leaders of the movement who stated that openly and publicly.

I consider myself a Canadian living in Quebec, whose origins are Greek. I am proud of my origins, but I am also proud of being a Quebecer. Most important, I am particularly honoured and proud that my parents chose Canada as their adopted country.

I, as others who have immigrated from around the world, am Canadian by choice. We have chosen to live in Quebec. Many of us have left countries that have known civil unrest, dictatorship, coup d'etat, hypocrisy, abuse and even the denial of basic civil, legal and human rights, the imprisonment and the execution of democratically elected parliamentarians, economic hardship beyond comprehension, and let us not forget the abuse and exploitation of the most vulnerable of our society, our children. That is an abuse to which I will not refer in terms of the ads that are now being promulgated all over Quebec.

It is on behalf of the citizens who sought and found a safe haven in a democratic society, as well as all of my constituents, that I ask my provincial government to respect my rights and to ask a clear question without ambiguity, without nuances and without word playing.

Mr. Bouchard should give all Quebecers the right to choose separation or unity. It is only through clarity that all Quebecers can make an informed decision. I am confident that their choice will be the same as mine, that their democratic rights will be respected by the PQ government and, more important, that future generations of Canadians living in Quebec, such as my daughters, will thank the members of this government and of this House for assuring that Canada continues to remain an open, democratic and just society where everyone can enjoy the same rights and where future immigrants from all over the world will be embraced and offered a safe haven. We are and will continue to be the best country in the world in which to live.

[Jerome Laper, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the achievements of a constituent in my riding of Ahuntsic, Jerome Laper.

Mr. Laper used his time and expertise to help develop the economy of another country. He worked for the volunteer organization CESO.

He completed two assignments in Guyana. He increased sales for a laundry detergent producer and for a coconut oil soap stock producer. His expertise and his recommendations helped to improve and increase sales for both producers.

I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Laper on his achievements. I am proud that Canadians such as Mr. Laper work not only to improve our country Canada, but also the world. His accomplishments merit recognition by all parliamentarians.

Congratulations, Mr. Laper, and good luck in your future endeavours.

[Quebec Wing Of Liberal Party Of Canada, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to congratulate the 1,400 party members, 40% of them youth delegates, who attended the convention of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Those present, including delegates from my riding of Ahuntsic, submitted and proposed resolutions indicative of their desire to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

I would especially like to congratulate a young delegate from Rosemont, Naomi Arpin, who submitted a resolution about incest. She was a victim of incest and introduced specific resolutions for the improvement of the Criminal Code.

Let us not forget that the work done by the volunteers of the Liberal Party of Canada is of capital importance. It helps develop a blueprint for society that is adapted to the realities of today and tomorrow.

My congratulations to all delegates who attended.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I understand how committed he is to ensuring that his constituents have the necessary services.

As I said in my speech and as the parliamentary secretary said, we are committed to ensuring that there are more funds. As I stated, we have given more money to Vancouver. I do not believe it was rhetoric. I truly believe what I said and what was said by the parliamentary secretary.

The government is committed. We said that in the throne speech. I encourage all members to support the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue in the ongoing program to combat the illicit drug trade and to ensure that police forces across the country have the money to do their jobs properly.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe he was not listening very closely to the comments of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who in fact stated all the different initiates we have taken over the years. As former parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice I can also mention our crime prevention initiative of $31 million and all sorts of other initiatives we have taken and will continue to take.

I agree with the member that we need more money. That is exactly what we stated in the throne speech. When the Minister of Finance brings forth his budget I believe there will be initiatives, although I will wait to hear what the minister has to say, that stem from our pronouncement in the throne speech of what we would like to do. I encourage the hon. member to support the Minister of Finance and the government to ensure that there will be more funds to combat organized crime and the illicit drug trade.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for this motion, and I will say that I support it wholeheartedly. It really is an excellent initiative, and I thank the Bloc for having given us the opportunity to address an issue which affects our children and the their future in our country.

I would like to deal more fully with the activities of organized crime groups involved in drug trafficking.

This is a subject for which I have a keen interest. Just recently, there were reports in the newspaper about a police operation in the riding of Ahuntsic, in the northern part of Montreal. The operation, called Operation Embryo, led to 205 charges being laid against two youth gangs. These young criminals between 19 and 25 years of age had been active for about two years in my riding and the neighbouring ridings, where through intimidation and harassment they sold drugs in elementary schools. They did not became gang members at 19. They had been recruited at a younger age by organized crime.

This is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. This is why I approve of the opposition motion for an in-depth study. It will not go on too long, and I think it is a good idea not to give too much time to the justice committee. Even though I am no longer a member of that committee I can say that I keep an eye on justice issues and particularly this one.

I personally want to congratulate the various police forces of my area and of Montreal North for this operation, which was a big success and helped to ensure the security of the population of my riding of Ahuntsic.

This government is keenly aware that most organized crime groups are very actively involved in drug trafficking. I just gave an example of the fact that they are recruit school children everywhere.

In its recently published report on organized crime in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics found that nine out of ten organized crime groups are involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, drug trafficking is for these groups the primary source of revenue, a very lucrative source. According to the federal government's best estimate, the size of the Canadian market for illicit drugs would be between $7 billion and $10 billion.

Recently, an study of the impact of organized crime published by the Department of the Solicitor General confirmed to what extent members of organized crime are involved in and help support illegal drug trafficking. Again, I want to support what was said by my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, about what happened to our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois because he spoke out against criminal activities. He is faced with a terrible situation and I want to tell him that we all support his actions. We want to ensure that he will prevail against this organized crime group that has threatened his family. It is really deplorable.

Of all the activities associated with organized crime, it is illegal drug trafficking, as I said, that has the worst consequences for Canada, because of its social and economic impacts and the violence associated with it.

Studies to put a dollar figure on the cost for Canada of illegal drug trafficking estimate it at between a conservative $1.4 billion a year and nearly $4 billion a year for the three provinces in Canada with the largest populations, namely Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

If we also take into account the fact that more than 93% of these groups resort to violence and other forms of intimidation, we get an increasingly threatening picture of the impact drug trafficking has on our society and, particularly, on our children.

The costs to Canada are huge, if we also take into account lost productivity, illness, death, violence, crimes against property and robbery that can occur as a result of drug trafficking or use.

Drug dependency has dramatic consequences on the life of people, and particularly on the future of our children. Trade and economic indicators cannot adequately measure the lives that are destroyed and the unrealized potential due to drug use nor the losses sustained as a result by society. The individual is not the only one that loses out. There is an impact on families, children, friends and society as a whole.

When all is said and done, these intangible consequences could well be the worst damage caused by the illicit drug trade to our country and our communities.

Illicit drug use, we know, occurs mostly among children and have-nots. Street kids are particularly vulnerable.

Cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in Canada. Cannabis consumption is said to have increased considerably in the last few years, and production of cannabis in Canada also seems to be on the rise.

In 1985, Canadian marijuana represented 10% of the total supply on the Canadian market. In 1995, it had reached 50%. We have grown from cannabis consumers to producers and exporters in the last few years.

It is absolutely horrible. I am one of the members in the House of Commons who supports what the health minister has initiated in terms of doing studies to see whether the consumption of marijuana for health purposes should be decriminalized. I support the Minister of Health in this study. I hope that the conclusions will lead to the beginning of the decriminalization of marijuana in our society. That is a personal opinion that I am giving on that issue.

The federal government is fully aware of how bad the situation is. This is why it has adopted a series of measures to try and solve the problem.

We are encouraged by the co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal police forces to fight the illicit cultivation of marijuana. I believe that if marijuana consumption were decriminalized, we might see less crime related to its sale and purchase.

The government has taken a number of initiatives in order to ensure that there are tools that are needed by our crime enforcement forces across the country in order to fight organized crime. I believe that other speakers before me have listed some, but I would like to list them again, because this question keeps coming up from the opposition.

We have invested $150 million for the RCMP to upgrade and enhance a national police information system. We have invested $18 million for the national DNA data bank initiative, giving police a powerful tool against serious violent criminals, an additional $78 million to the national anti-smuggling initiative, which will combat illicit drug trade and an additional $15 million annually to put more RCMP officers in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal airports to ensure that the drug trade does not come in freely through our borders.

The government approved $13.8 million for the RCMP, to be used for workload increases in 1999 and 2000. We established 13 proceeds of crime units across the country in the RCMP. The RCMP has recently created the new position of deputy commissioner of organized crime to oversee and co-ordinate the force's efforts at the national and international level.

I would like to say once again that I support this motion 100%, and I encourage all members of the House to give unanimous support to the great initiative taken by the Bloc Quebecois.