Eleni Bakopanos

[Points Of Order, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have unanimous consent to table a document that the Minister of Justice mentioned in answer to a question from a Conservative member.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of the Government of Canada in this dispute, in partnership with Quebec, the industry, unions as well as local communities, is to maintain market access for asbestos products.

Turning to the specific question the member raises of challenging the French ban at the World Trade Organization, officials held exploratory discussions on WTO options with interested partners, Quebec included, the asbestos industry as well as the trade unions in September 1997.

A number of times the Prime Minister of our country has intervened with Prime Minister Blair, specifically on September 30, 1997 and on October 22, 1997 raising this issue. Our mission in Paris also raised the issue with senior French authorities. It was also raised during Premier Bouchard's visit to France and between our Prime Minister and President Chirac during the francophone summit. There have been ongoing discussions on this issue.

The deputy minister of international trade on November 26 also held consultations with interested stakeholders, Quebec, the asbestos industry as well as the trade unions.

The meeting proved to be beneficial. All the key players were involved in all discussions that the government has conducted. The federal government meets regularly with the Quebec government, the industry and the unions to develop a common approach in addressing the French ban on asbestos use as well as its potential effects in other markets.

The federal government will continue to consult closely with all the major stakeholders with respect to our options in the WTO.

Let me assure Canadians that Canada attaches a high priority to protecting access to foreign markets for chrysotile asbestos and is prepared to explore all available options to accomplish this objective.

[Points Of Order, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the letter that the minister referred to during question period, if I have unanimous consent.

[Child Sex Abuse, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Victoria, I attended the International Summit of Sexually Exploited Youth. This gathering was co-chaired by Senator Landon Pearson.

The summit theme, out from the shadows, reflects the importance of giving a voice to sexually exploited youth and children. We listened to children talking about their personal experiences. We listened as 15-year olds and 16-year olds said they were not given the chance to be a child and to enjoy all the joys and challenges that come with childhood, as my daughters have.

Thousands of children across the world and here in Canada are victims of abuse related to child pornography and child prostitution. Since Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the summit was an excellent opportunity to renew our commitment to the right of all children and youth to live free from sexual abuse and free from sexual exploitation.

A statement and action plan expressing the will of these children was passed at the summit. I would invite all my colleagues in this House to read this statement.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House in support of our government's outstanding achievement in bringing Canada back to economic prosperity.

In 1993, the Liberal Party received a very clear mandate from Canadians: that the government's finances must be put in order. Now, more than a year before the target date, we have kept our word and fulfilled our promises. Canadians had sufficient confidence in our ability in this area to give us a second mandate to keep up the good work.

In January 1994 the deficit was $42 billion. The unemployment rate was higher than ever and our debtload had jeopardized the future of our social programs, health programs and most of all our children's futures, my two daughters' futures.

Five years ago I was very concerned about my daughter's future. The country was in a financial and political crisis. But since the Liberals took office over five years ago, more than one million jobs have been created, the unemployment rate has dropped steadily down to 8.9% in January. Now Canada is the first G-7 country to reach its target of a balanced budget. With a growth rate of three and a half per cent in 1998 we will be leading the group of most industrialized countries according to the OECD. So I have good news to tell my two daughters.

With this budget Canadians regained the liberty to choose their future and what they want for their country. We can set our priorities, we can invest in our children and young people, we can create an optimal environment for economic and social prosperity while at the same time pursuing our goal to reduce our debt.

Contrary to what is being said by the official opposition we are not putting aside our concern for the debt. We are putting money aside to take care of the debt. The 50:50 formula proposed during the last election campaign and reaffirmed in the Speech from the Throne is a well balanced approach allowing us to invest in the future while assuring our financial stability. In other words we are beginning to build a house from the foundation up and not the other way around according to some of the opposition members.

To be fiscally responsible while ensuring all citizens have access to high quality health and social services while fighting against social exclusion and creating optimal conditions for growth is what this government is offering to Canadians.

Some members of this House would have us believe that the government should not invest in our future, that it should concentrate solely on debt reduction. We believe the quickest way to reduce our debt is to have a growing economy and therefore to invest in job creation and most of all in education.

I believe the government has a role to play in providing the tools to facilitate growth and this is exactly what this budget is doing.

In my riding of Ahuntsic for example, investments made by the federal government in the transition job fund enabled several textile companies to update their equipment and hire more employees.

Thanks to federal grants, Tricot Giorgio, Tricot Terrytex and Christina Canada were able to buy new state-of-the-art equipment and export their products to new markets. This initiative has generated 366 new jobs in my riding of Ahuntsic since September.

This goes to show the emphasis placed by this government on job creation and the development of a vital economy for my city, Montreal, my province, Quebec, and my country, Canada.

I and many of my colleagues believe that education should be a priority for any government. As we all know, education is a priority for this government. By investing in education the government is showing its clear commitment toward the future of our youth and our country.

My parents believed in education. They sacrificed their own future in order that I would have a better future by coming to Canada. They truly believed, and thanks to them today I can say education is the reason I sit in this House. As the mother of two young daughters I also place a high premium on education. When I have occasion I encourage all the young people in my riding to continue their studies. I believe this is what the budget does. It encourages young people to stay in school and to get a good education in order to have a better future.

The Canadian opportunities strategy will provide Canadians, especially young Canadians, with greater opportunities to prosper in the new knowledge based economy. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to prepare our youth for the 21st century.

Establishing the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, to support young people who wish to pursue post-secondary studies, fits in with this. Through an initial endowment of $2.5 million, the foundation will provide scholarships to over 100,000 part time and full time Canadian students, and this will be done in partnership with the provinces and the various stakeholders in the education community. This is the most important investment ever made by a Canadian government in support of the education of our youth.

Some criticize this initiative, as if the federal government were trying to take the place of the provinces in the field of education. No one, however, has questioned the fact that the provinces are responsible for programs and their contents, as well as administering educational institutions.

On the contrary, I believe the creation of an independent foundation designed to better position Canadians on the labour market will benefit the provinces. In order to avoid any unnecessary duplication, the administration of the fund and the allocation criteria for scholarships will be decided upon in partnership with the provinces, through an organization at arm's length from the federal government.

Faced with the challenges of the new millennium, governments have a duty to work together. However, we know that the Quebec separatist government does not really intend to co-operate. That might show that Canada works, that Canada is a good place and that Quebeckers should remain in Canada. I feel it would be unfair to penalize thousands of young people from Quebec and elsewhere in the country simply because of the illusions of the separatist leaders.

A well educated labour force creates employment. The youth employment strategy announced in 1997 to help young Canadians in gaining experience in the workplace has been renewed. This is extremely important for young Canadians.

In my riding of Ahuntsic 51 organizations and private enterprise used federal funds to hire 81 young people last summer. Hopefully they will hire more because we have increased funding in that program.

Thanks to these programs, young Canadians are able to find a crucial first job that bridges the gap between school and work. Also, this budget supports youth employment by more than doubling funding for youth at risk, principally those who have not completed high school.

I had occasion to work on three such projects since I was elected to this House. I can say that the young people who finished those projects felt it was one of the best experiences they had. Three of them returned to school, and they were street kids to begin with.

Another measure that encourages youth employment is the employment insurance premium holiday provided to employers for additional Canadians age 18 to 24 hired in 1999 and 2000.

These initiatives will make it easier for young Canadians to integrate into the work force. Yes, with the Canadian opportunities strategy this government is clearly showing its commitment toward the future, a future firmly anchored in the social values of this country and in liberalism and our Liberal values also.

This government is very recognizant, despite what the opposition members would have people believe, of the sacrifices of all Canadians. With Canadians' support and good Liberal management we now have a balanced budget which allows the government to reduce taxes without affecting our social programs.

I believe tax relief must be targeted to support Canadians' priorities and to those who most need it. In fact, my constituents told me so. I polled my constituents and the majority of them asked that there be some tax relief for those in the most need in Canada.

This is what the 1998 budget is proposing by delivering $7 billion of tax relief over the next three years to middle and low income Canadians.

Starting in 1998, the basic personal exemption will increase, meaning 400,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay any federal income tax.

Also, there will be $850 million which will be injected to increase the child tax benefit and to help working Canadians with children.

The government proposes to increase the limit on child care expense deductions from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under 7 and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children between 7 and 16.

The 1998 budget is in keeping with the tradition of sound financial and economic management initiated by this government when it was first elected, in 1993. This approach reflects the priorities of Canadians. This new budget is very significant. By balancing its books, the Liberal government gave back to Canadians the freedom to decide the future of their country. We can now define our priorities and invest to prepare the future of our children and our youth.

[International Women's Day, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Sunday, March 8, was International Women's Day and marked the start of International Women's Week.

This year the day was dedicated to all those working to raise the profile of women's rights, underscoring the commitment that will be required in the future to promote their equality.

Women's rights are human rights. Today for the third year in a row I gathered together representatives from diverse women's organizations for our breakfast in my riding.

We must, as the government, focus attention on the important work done by women in such organizations as Transit 24, Concertation-femmes, the Montreal Italian Women's Centre, Maji-Soi, the Maison buissonnière, Remue-ménage, Mono-vie Ahuntsic, Entraide Ahuntsic Nord et Sud, the Association de gardiennage d'Ahuntsic and the Centre d'action bénévole Bordeaux-Cartierville to name but a few.

I am honoured to work closely with these women to continue to make important change and improve the lives of all women in my riding. Let us all applaud these women as unsung heroes.

[Justice, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for this important question.

I cannot comment, however, as there may be an appeal. I must say that the federal legislation is clear: no means no.

We have to challenge the myths and stereotypes, including the view that a victim, usually a woman, has to forcibly resist to indicate denial of consent.

Let me assure all members of the House that this government will stand behind the legislation, including the new rape shield legislation, so that victims will not be victimized again by the justice system.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will stick to the motion and not raise every hodgepodge piece of legislation that has been passed in the House. I will talk about the due process of law, which opposition members probably do not understand or do not respect. I fail to understand what the gun legislation, the wheat board legislation and other pieces of legislation have to do with this important motion. I will only speak to the issue and will ignore the blatant partisan remarks of the hon. opposition member.

The enactment of the Canadian bill of rights stems from our desire to ensure the atrocities that occurred to millions of Jews, ethnic minorities, political dissidents, people with mental and physical disabilities and homosexuals do not happen again. That is the reason we have a bill of rights. The bill of rights already protects an individual's rights to the enjoyment of his or her property.

The United Nations responded to some of the atrocities during the second world war and to some of the other issues I brought forward by drafting the United Nations declaration of human rights. The parliament of the day in Canada enacted the Canadian bill of rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights has quasi-constitutional status. A number of its provisions were repeated in specific provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the Charter contains no specific clause on property rights, it may be held that the following clause in the Bill of Rights continues to protect property rights:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law—

It can be held that this clause provides protection to property rights in that a person cannot be deprived of his rights except by regular application of the law. The Bill applies only to federal laws, unlike the Charter which applies to provincial laws.

Numerous laws also regulate and protect the ownership and enjoyment of property in Canada. For example, real and personal property laws regulate the acquisition and disposition of all kinds of property. These laws protect individuals from fraud and other mistakes that may result in someone losing property.

There has been an evolution in what we think of as property and protecting individuals in a fair manner from losing their right to enjoy property. The federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial family law acts ensure that women are not deprived of their right to a fair share of matrimonial property and assets regardless of who has legal title.

There are common law rules which govern the purchase and sale of land and the taking of interest in mortgages or leases. There are statues that protect an interest in property, from cars to patents. Like all other rights the right to enjoy property is subject to some limitations in society.

As I said, the federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial family law acts ensure women are not deprived of their right to a fair share of matrimonial property and assets regardless of who has legal title.

There are laws to govern the use of property in the public interest. For instance, there are land use and zoning laws with the power to limit the type of construction allowed in a residential area. Environmental legislation establishes a whole body of regulations governing everything from the disposal of hazardous waste to felling trees. There are laws that govern ownership of shares by limited companies, bankruptcy, and ownership of land by non-Canadians. Cultural heritage laws guarantee respect for the interests of native peoples with respect to use of their lands, and so forth.

All these laws place real limitations on property ownership and use. Everyone recognizes the need for these limitations. If the government were to consider amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sight should not be lost of the important limitations on the enjoyment of property.

The procedure for amending the constitution is quite complex and would require the following elements if we chose that route: a resolution of the Senate and House of Commons and a resolution of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have a least 50% of the population of all the provinces. Obtaining approval for this type of constitutional amendment, as we have know from the past, can be quite difficult.

The notion of property is far greater than real property. Given the broad notion that can be applied to real property, we must be careful if we are able to alter the existing protection for property rights in a quasi-constitional document.

It should also be noted that women's advocacy groups have had a number of concerns with the further entrenchment of property rights. A man's home is his castle is a disturbing concept to many women who have been denied their share of family assets. It has only been a few years since Mrs. Murdoch was denied a share of the family farm where she had worked for many years.

In a complex society with many interests and competing rights from the division of the matrimonial home to environmental laws and zoning bylaws we must recognize that rights are not absolute. In many countries of the world women are legally and effectively denied the right to own, inherit or control properties. In Canada today this is not the case. Women have the right to enjoy property to the same extent as men. There are many existing protections for property rights in Canada both in the Canadian bill of rights and other statues and through common law, as I stated earlier.

Other challenges facing the government are more pressing than the need to provide additional protection for property rights.

This government must deal with more pressing challenges than providing additional protection for property rights. The government is determined to protect our social safety net, our health system, and youth employment, to name just a few areas of concern.

The protection of property rights is important for Canadians' prosperity. Property rights are, in our view, already protected by existing legislation.

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to assist the hon. member one more time in bringing forth the actual facts in the case and to familiarize him with international assistance in legal and criminal matters.

Police agencies must follow a clearly established process to seek the assistance of another country when carrying out an investigation.

When a police force is conducting an investigation which takes it outside Canadian borders, the police force's request must be channelled through the international assistance group of the Department of Justice.

This group is a Canadian authority administering incoming and outgoing requests for assistance from and to other countries. The group's main focus is to ensure that the requests for assistance meet the legal requirements of the country receiving a particular request or those of Canada in the case of incoming requests.

In the Airbus affair, the international assistance group sent a request for mutual legal assistance to Swiss authorities on behalf of the RCMP. The RCMP was and is responsible for this investigation. It was always clear to both the Canadian and Swiss authorities that the request for mutual legal assistance contained allegations that were the very subject of the police investigation.

So that this would be perfectly clear, this point was repeated several times. Certain turns of phrase wrongly left the impression, however, that the conclusion had been reached that there had been some form of embezzlement.

The Government of Canada apologized for this and reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr. Mulroney.

In addition, changes were made to the mutual legal assistance process in November 1995 to ensure that this does not happen again. For example, counsel within the international assistance group will now review all requests to consider whether they contain conclusory statements or statements inconsistent with the investigative nature of the request.

The statement reached by the parties, I repeat, in January 1997, speaks clearly to the inappropriate language of the letter. It specifies that the letter is part of an—

[Transitional Job Creation Fund, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal has suffered greatly, from an economic point of view in particular, as a result of the political and economic instability brought about by the propaganda of the separatist government in Quebec.

In order to provide assistance to small and medium size businesses, the federal government has created the transitional job creation fund.

Since September, this fund has created 366 new jobs and provided $1.5 million for many textile manufacturers in my riding of Ahuntsic; to name a few, Tricot Giorgio, Tricot Terrytex and Christina Canada, all of which have used these funds to purchase new high tech equipment and export their Canadian products to new markets.

This is another good example of the importance this government attaches to job creation and to the development of a dynamic economy in Montreal.