Eleni Bakopanos

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the question submitted to us by the official opposition, namely the conditions for a marriage to be valid.

It seems that our friends over there are particularly concerned that nothing be done to change the existing law, particularly the rule that marriage may be contracted solely by two persons of the opposite sex.

Today I would like to address this question within the very specific context of our government's initiative, which dates back several years now, aimed at making federal legislation and regulations fully compatible with the civil law of the province of Quebec, the province in which I was elected. The government considered, and continues to believe, that it is important to take the necessary steps to ensure that this valuable Canadian aspect of bijuralism is reflected in fact.

What is bijuralism? It is the term that has been used for some time to describe a situation that has existed in Canada since the passage of the Quebec Act of 1774, namely the co-existence within one territory, Canada, of two contemporary legal traditions, the British-inspired common law, and the Roman-inspired civil law.

Since 1994, the year in which the new Quebec Civil Code, adopted in 1991, came into effect, during the reign of Quebec Minister of Justice Gil Rémillard, the Minister of Justice for Canada carried out numerous preliminary studies on thirty or so complex issues, with a view to best ensuring compatibility between federal laws and the new Civil Code. It is important to note that this reform affected more than 80% of the rules in the Civil Code of Lower Canada, which had been in effect up until then, and dated back to 1866.

The federal government then proceeded to hire experienced legal experts as well as engaging the services of a number of professors of law and other experts. These were consulted then, and will be again now, on the numerous questions raised by such an undertaking.

In order to set the stage, let us say that of the 700 laws in the body of federal statutes, over 300 will have to be amended in the coming years to ensure compliance with the distinctive nature of Quebec's civil law, in both letter and spirit, of all the laws passed by this House.

One of the most difficult questions the civil code section of the federal Department of Justice had to examine involves pre-confederation provisions, that is, those passed by the legislature of United Canada prior to Confederation. Although this is only one of the 30 studies released by the federal department in relation to its work, it is interesting to note that it concerns much more legally complex subjects, which have up to now been essentially not tackled.

While the Constitution Act, 1867, gives parliament the legislative authority over marriage conditions, the government had to give some thought to the impact of repealing some 300 sections of the civil code of Lower Canada dating from 1866 in a whole range of areas, including the one that we are concerned with today and to the way to ensure the necessary legal continuity.

Another basic principle of the long job undertaken by the civil code section of the Department of Justice is to not change existing law except to the extent and only when harmonization with civil law requires it.

Canada's legal minds have therefore had to analyse the question of repealing some dozen sections of the civil code of Lower Canada on marriage in order to decide whether they should be re-enacted and if so, how.

The institution of marriage is historically, as I said earlier in my short history lesson, culturally and by definition a heterosexual institution. In Quebec, a fundamental condition of a valid marriage has always been that the two people involved are of the opposite sex. That condition is inherent in the very institution of marriage.

In its 1994 Civil Code, the Quebec legislature restated the rule whereby only a man and a woman may enter into marriage. This rule can be found in article 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

This is also reflective of the state of the law in all other Canadian jurisdictions. This is also part of the reason why we moved an amendment this morning to make the difference between the federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The opinions of our experts led us to propose a number of substitute clauses in Bill C-50, four of which have to do with marriage. These clauses concern age, consent of the partners, and dissolution of marriage, and ensure that enforcement of these provisions is limited to Quebec.

It should be noted that this work has involved broad consultations with associations of jurists in Quebec, i.e. the Quebec bar, the Chambre des notaires, and the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as the Quebec justice department. These learned bodies have all had an opportunity to examine the provisions of Bill C-50, including those having to do with marriage.

In fact, representations were made to us by the Quebec justice department, urging us to use the wording of article 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec in clause 4 of the bill, so that harmonization of the applicable rules would be as consistent as possible.

We can therefore see that all necessary precautions have been taken by government legal experts to ensure that the rule of law, which is well established in our country with respect to what constitutes a spouse, is not inadvertently changed.

The government has taken all the necessary steps in Bill C-50 to ensure that the current definition of marriage in our society would be implemented in a uniform manner across the country.

I would like to respond to comments made by opposition members. If the government has never expressed any intention to change the legal definition of marriage, then what is the point of the Reform Party's motion? That is really the question today.

As a parliamentary secretary, I have often been privy to matters in the House dealing with justice issues. I see the Reform Party as unfortunately attempting to continue to either spread fear or to pit, which is more dangerous, Canadians against each other. I see it as a divisiveness in terms of pitting same sex partners against heterosexual partners or pitting Canadians of other origins against other Canadians. This constant attempt to divide society has to be one of the most despicable things that I have heard in the House and, in my opinion, it continues with the motion. It constantly tries to make and score political points by confusing the issue.

There is no issue here. The Minister of Justice was clear this morning that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage. It has never said that it would and she put that on the record this morning.

I ask Canadians who are listening to this debate to ask the question of themselves: Why was the motion brought forward in the House?

I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond further to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the reuse of single use medical devices by hospitals.

The practice of resterilizing and reusing devices labelled by the manufacturer of single use devices has been common in Canada for some time. Since 1994 there have been a number of major conferences on the issue. At none of these conferences were serious fears expressed about the hazards of the practice.

Since 1991 the Quebec minister of health has published three guidelines in this regard: first, to endorse the practice, then to annul the first notice and, finally, to again amend it in order to permit reuse under certain conditions. All of this points to confusion regarding the dangers of this practice.

In 1994 and 1996 Health Canada provided funding and support for research to the Canadian Health Care Association for the development of two policy documents on reuse, which were largely accepted by Canadian hospitals and published in the United States by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.

Delivery of health care and the types and the use made of drugs and medical devices in hospitals are provincial and territorial matters.

Health Canada has demonstrated leadership in developing national guidelines on reuse. The department is willing to work with the provinces, the territories and the advisory committee on health services to continue that work.

[Barreau Du Québec, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the 150th anniversary of the Barreau du Québec and the important role played by lawyers and jurists in our parliamentary institutions in Quebec.

We will recall that the mandate of this organization is to safeguard public interest and, in addition, to ensure that the public has access to a credible and efficient justice system.

Today the bar represents approximately 18,000 lawyers, of which 40% are women. It is with good reason that we place a great deal of importance on our judicial system as it plays such a central role in our thriving democracy.

It brings great pleasure to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to bring greetings to the bar today in Quebec City.

There are some very prestigious lawyers in Quebec. We wish the best of luck to the Barreau in its continued concern for recruiting members of quality to the benefit of our legal institutions.

[Julie Payette, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the countdown has now begun for Quebecer Julie Payette, a member of the Discovery shuttle team, which is set to take off on Thursday, around 6.48 a.m.

As Julie said herself, her mission is the fulfillment of a lifelong goal.

Julie, allow us to share in your success. Your mission is a result of team effort. Many members of that team have dedicated a good part of their lives to acquiring the knowledge and experience necessary to make this important mission a success.

We will be watching you on Thursday, Julie. We are proud of you. We are proud of this mission that you will carry out brilliantly and professionally, on behalf of Canada and Quebec.

Good luck Julie, and thank you for representing us so proudly.

[International Day Of Families, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 15, is the International Day of Families, established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 to improve the institutional capability of nations to tackle serious family related problems.

I rise today to pay tribute to three non-profit organizations which are key support elements for the families of my riding of Ahuntsic.

The Union des familles d'Ahuntsic is a cultural and sports association, whose activities include a summer camp for disadvantaged children.

La Parenterie du nord de Montréal is a community self-help association through which families help other families who have a family member suffering from mental illness.

La Maison Buissonnière offers socialization services for children and parent-child activities to a clientele of parents and children from birth to four years of age.

In celebrating the International Day of Families I look forward to the 15th annual National Family Week in my riding, which asks grades 4 and 5 students to submit a piece of their artwork for National Family Week.

I also call on everyone today to thank their families for their love and support.

[Justice, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the committee is in the process right now of preparing its report. In fact we have finished preparing our report.

I also want to address the issue of conditional sentencing which has been brought up by the hon. member a number of times in the House. At the request of the minister, the committee will be studying conditional sentencing. There are a number of decisions in which we have to review the intention of parliament in terms of conditional sentencing. I ask the hon. member to assist us in the process. I ask his colleagues who sit on the committee not to bring forth other frivolous motions so we can get on with conditional sentencing.

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying on my behalf and as someone who has worked for equality in this country for a long, long time, over 25 years, and on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the government that I take very strong exception to the remarks made by the hon. member.

This government rejects any suggestion that the decision taken was discriminatory and racist. We are confident that Canadians looking at the government's record on appointments will see concrete evidence of the personal commitment of the Minister of Justice to improving the quality and diversity of the judiciary and in particular, to increasing minority representation and women's participation on the bench. A fair reading of our recent efforts will prove this.

In Nova Scotia in the past year alone the Minister of Justice and this government have has appointed two outstanding jurists from minority communities, Judge Heather Robertson and Justice Linda Oland. Furthermore, real efforts are being made through judicial appointments committees across this country to achieve the objective of greater diversity on our benches. These efforts are bearing fruit.

More could be done. I agree with the hon. member on that. As the minister herself said last week in answer to these questions from the hon. member, critics of these recent unified family court appointments should know that we are a government that takes considerable pride in the fact that we appointed the first black judge in the province of Alberta to a superior court.

These decisions are not made in isolation, something the opposition often forgets. As with all appointments, the Nova Scotia unified family court appointments were made following extensive consultations with the provincial attorney general, senior members of the bench and the bar. They are excellent appointments and reflect our continuing commitment to a strong family court.

This is the real story of what has happened in Nova Scotia recently. Through a shared vision and the provision of resources, the unified family court, the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government have laid the groundwork for reducing the costs and the pain of family disputes and want to find lasting solutions to benefit families and children.

[Petitions, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour of tabling a petition by Canadians of Hellenic origin and other Canadians who are opposed to the bombing in Yugoslavia.

[National Volunteer Week, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week we celebrated the National Volunteer Week, to recognize the efforts of the 7.5 million Canadians who give generously of their time all through the year in order to help the less advantaged members of our community.

I take this opportunity to highlight an individual, a Canadian of Hellenic origin, who was honoured by the Quebec National Assembly with a volunteer award for her efforts and contribution over the years.

This person is Ms. Vicky Nicolakakos, a friend whom I consider to be a most deserving individual. All those who know Vicky know her commitment and her tireless efforts in responding to the needs of the underprivileged, the ailing, and the troubled of our society. She is an outstanding Canadian and a great role model for us all. Sinharitiria , Vicky.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for more than 17 years the politically influential U.S. softwood lumber industry has sought action by the U.S. government to restrict Canadian access to the U.S. lumber market. On that point the member was right.

The hon. member, however, may be unaware that Canada won the last softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. in 1994, so we are not lap dogs.

It was this defeat and the subsequent threat by the U.S. industry to file a new countervailing duty case that gave rise to the softwood lumber agreement. The industry and provinces wanted to avoid another long and costly legal battle with an uncertain outcome, hence their advocacy and support for the 1996 softwood lumber agreement with the U.S.

Let me assure the hon. member that the government is very concerned with actions by the U.S. customs service to reclassify lumber products that are currently exempted from the softwood lumber agreement. We are sparing no effort, as was stated by the minister, to counter these reclassifications.

To bring the hon. member up to date, last week Canadian and U.S. officials held a meeting under the softwood lumber agreement dispute settlement mechanism. We outlined our objections to the U.S. proposal to reclassify rougher headed lumber. Moreover, we have already signalled our intention to raise this reclassification at the World Customs Organization.

The hon. member likely knows that we are already challenging the U.S. customs reclassification of drilled studs at the World Customs Organization.

Let there be no misunderstanding. The government will vigorously oppose all attempts by the U.S. to expand unilaterally the coverage of the softwood lumber agreement.