Eleni Bakopanos

[Gun Control, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has finally yielded to pressures from the powerful gun lobby. Yesterday the Bloc critic on justice issues, the member of Parliament for Saint-Hubert, stated:

"Unfortunately, as soon as the topic of firearms comes up, males get excited and agitated-And since women are not the majority in the Bloc, male members put a lot of pressure on the caucus".

And yet, it should be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois was committed to supporting the bill, as mentioned by the Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, on May 6, and I quote: "It is a good bill which provides for the registration and control of firearms". Women in Quebec will be very disappointed to learn that the Bloc does not take into account their views which are overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-68.

[Committees Of The House, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to order in council appointments.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I missed the time for presenting reports from committees. May I present the report now?

[Cultural Communities, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, five members of the Bloc Quebecois' commission of cultural communities resigned to denounce the fact that they were being manipulated by Bloc officials.

With their resignation, the cultural communities representatives wanted to show that they would not have a real role to play in an independent Quebec.

The few reactions from Bloc spokespersons following these resignations clearly show the deep malaise which exists between the Bloc and the cultural communities.

This is one more example of the failure of the Bloc as well as the PQ to sell their separatist option to Quebec's cultural communities. These Quebecers have seen through the PQ's fearmongering and desperate tactics.

Quebec's cultural communities deserve respect; they do not want to be ignored. Quebec's future will not be decided without their input, in spite of what the Bloc and the PQ may think.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have already said that, at any rate, the Government of Quebec does not want to participate in the initiatives already taken by the federal government. Every province in Canada wants to participate, except Quebec.

I think that the official opposition should be very careful when talking about links with the federal government, because we have already proposed administrative agreements. Several of them, which could, in fact, have helped Quebecers, were not signed by the Parti Quebecois government. Now, the hon. member dares to raise such an issue.

I think we have to look at what is behind what is happening in Quebec, and I think that I put my finger on it earlier, and that is that the current government, the Parti Quebecois, has only one goal, and that is to bring about Quebec's separation from Canada. They have devoted all of their energies, human resources and money to this cause, and have taken no other initiative in the past six months.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Vaudreuil.

Since my arrival in this House, I have come to the conclusion that the surprises will never end. The opposition, which never misses an opportunity to label the government a "champion of the status quo", has risen today to denounce this initiative.

This same opposition which constantly advocates decentralization, is today objecting to the government transferring greater responsibility to the provinces in the area of social security. Although they continually preach that federalism is a system that is too rigid, they are now opposing a measure precisely intended to allow greater flexibility in the application of programs.

Because this is exactly what the new Canada health and social transfer (CHST) announced in last February's budget is intended to do: to give the provinces more latitude in the area of funding and management of health care, post-secondary education and social services.

On April 1, 1996, the new program will replace the Canada assistance plan and established program financing for health and post-secondary education. Under the new program, the provinces will receive block funding for social assistance and social services, health care and post-secondary education.

It is known that the current Canada assistance plan is an obstacle to innovation because of its overly restrictive cost-sharing requirements.

The Canada health and social transfer will give the provinces the flexibility they need to implement innovative approaches to social programs so they can be more effective in meeting the specific needs of their clients. For the provinces this is good news, because it establishes social assistance and income security measures, which for all sorts of technical reasons are not always eligible for funding under the Canada assistance plan.

It is good news, in particular, for Quebec, which is always in the forefront of innovation in the area of social security. For example, Quebec's APPORT program provides wage assistance to low income families with children and encourages parents on welfare to return to the labour market and helps low income parents keep their jobs.

Since its inception in 1988, this program has never been eligible for cost-sharing under CAP because it was not based on needs testing and therefore did not meet CAP requirements. It was the same thing with its ancestor, the work income supplement program, introduced in 1979.

In the 1970s, various social measures aimed at protecting disadvantaged children in schools could not be cofinanced under CAP either because they did not meet the definition of "social protection services", which excluded education-related sercices.

Probation services for young offenders were excluded from funding under CAP for a similar reason: the definition of "social protection services" also excluded correctional services.

Several other progressive measures implemented by the provinces were not eligible for funding under CAP because they were not based on needs testing or did not meet the definition of "social protection services". This was the case for a number of programs aimed at assisting persons with disabilities or impairments, such as self administered care programs, community-based services and para-transit services.

All these measures are presently ineligible for funding under the Canada assistance plan. CAP's excessive rigidity tends to discourage provincial initiatives and innovation. Yet these are social programs and services that are effective in meeting people's real needs. They provide assistance that is geared to specific needs and situations. And all of these measures will be eligible for full funding under the new Canada health and social transfer.

As a Quebecer I am appalled that my provincial government refuses to see any other issue than the separation of Quebec. Even today's discussion will be used to fuel its separatist arguments.

I have before me examples of projects and agreements reached between the federal government and the other provinces which have taken strong initiatives in addressing the specific problems they and their citizens are facing. Unfortunately the PQ government has one issue on its mind. As the Prime Minister said this past weekend, I am ashamed the PQ government cannot look beyond the Constitution and the real problems facing

Quebecers today, especially the poor in Quebec and in my riding of Saint-Denis.

The federal government is looking forward while the PQ government is looking constantly backwards with public money. It is doing it with my taxpayer money. It is using that money to fuel separatist sentiments. The PQ government shows no leadership at all. There is no creativity or innovation in terms of sitting down with the federal government to look at what types of programs will help the most disadvantaged and the poor in Quebec.

This is the type of country members of the PQ want to create, where there is one issue only: let us separate. They do not look beyond that but place the blame on the federal government. I am tired of the same violin story playing all the time. They continue to say the federal government is the culprit of all the ills that befall Quebec society. That is totally false.

Why were many actions taken by the government with other provincial governments through negotiation and collaboration? I will name a few. The Atlantic provinces have been hit the hardest in terms of unemployment and the current economic climate. Why were these provinces able to sit down to negotiate agreements with the federal government, thereby helping the more disadvantaged and the unemployed in their provinces? Why did my provincial government not do the same thing?

It organized commissions with taxpayers' money, prepared documents with taxpayers' money, talked and talked and continues to talk and all for one reason, to achieve the dream of separation; a dream the majority of Quebecers do not share. They do not share that dream yet the PQ government, with its friends on the other side of the House, continues to talk about one thing. As we all know, it continues to talk about it in different languages. Its only concern for the poor, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged is to accuse the federal government of a lack of vision and a lack of leadership.

With this new program, the provinces will have all the latitude they need to implement and fund pilot projects and new employability measures. They will no longer have to submit to rigid and restrictive requirements, as they currently have to. If they want, they will even be able to combine social assistance, health or education measures.

In fact, with respect to social assistance, the provinces will have to meet only one requirement under the Canada health and social transfer. They will not be able to deny social services to people who are entitled to social assistance because they have not fulfilled a residency requirement.

I repeat the only real national requirement under the Canada health and social transfer with regard to social assistance is that which concerns health and residence requirements. That requirement is not based on the idle whim of the federal government. It reflects the wishes and expectations of all Canadians. It reflects our desire to preserve the notion of freedom of movement within Canada between provinces.

It seems just as contradictory to say that the government wants to limit the provinces to a mere consultative role when, as I just explained, they will be able to apply the social programs they deem most appropriate in whatever manner they see fit, and will be the ones in charge in this area.

The Canada health and social transfer is an important initiative that responds both to today's social imperatives and to the fiscal pressures facing government. And it is also a striking demonstration of the flexibility of Canadian federalism, which allows us, simply by means of legislation, to make major adjustments within areas of jurisdiction.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the Bloc Quebecois can only repeat that it is the government's fault. How is it that the Minister of Health in Quebec cut $454 million from his budget, when the federal government's transfer payment actually went up? The blame need not always be placed on the federal government, because provincial governments make their own choices. The choice the PQ minister and government made was to cut in the area of health care on the backs of the poor, just like you said.

[Employment, April 26th, 1995]

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

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit employment centres in my riding, and I noted a marked improvement in the services provided. At the same time, however, we know that the programs falling under the Department of Human Resources Development will inevitably be hit by the budget cuts.

Can the minister please tell the House how his department is improving services to assist the unemployed in finding jobs?

[Telecommunications Industry, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

A month ago Bell Canada announced the elimination of approximately 10,000 jobs. Recently we were informed of financial difficulties at Unitel which could lead to more layoffs. In light of these developments, what is the government's position on competition in the Canadian telecommunications market?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House of Commons today to speak on Bill C-76. This budget shows once again our commitment to consulting Canadians.

The Minister of Finance has delivered a fair and honest budget. It is a tough budget, some may argue, but the measures introduced are essential if we are to face economic realities and reach our fiscal targets.

For the second year in a row, the Liberal government has refused to reduce the deficit at the expense of the Canadian

taxpayer. This budget will allow us to meet our deficit reduction goals without increasing personal income taxes.

This budget illustrates the difficult choices that confronted us when we undertook to revamp federal programs in order to increase efficiency without compromising the priorities of Canadians.

The budget reflects the most thorough review of federal programs ever. Through program review, the government identified $16.9 billion in cuts to programs over the next three years, not including transfers to individuals and to the provinces.

Some additional highlights of this year's budget I would like to highlight are the reform of government programs and procedures to eliminate waste and abuse and ensure value for Canadian taxpayers. We have just completed the largest program review ever initiated.

The second is the move toward a fairer tax system, including tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts, R and D incentives, and higher taxes for corporations and large banks. For too long corporations have been more or less excluded from taxation. This is one step in the right direction in ensuring that everyone bears the burden of this deficit.

Another highlight is the delivery of a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy that includes a reduction in business subsidies by 60 per cent over three years from $3.8 billion in 1994-95 to $1.5 billion in 1997.

At this point I would like to focus the House's attention on one aspect of the budget that unfairly affects many Canadians of Greek origin as well as other veterans. That is the announced changes to the war veterans allowance program that would return this program to its original intent. As a result, the war veterans allowance and related benefits have been discontinued for former members of the resistance. Also, all allied veterans with post-war residency are required to reside in Canada six months out of the year if they wish to continue to receive these benefits.

These changes will affect approximately 2,895 former resistance members in the Montreal region of whom 90 per cent are Canadians of Greek origin.

On March 2, 1992 the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended to remove the right of applicants with service limited to a resistance group to qualify for benefits. However, existing domestic resistance service recipients were to be grandfathered if they maintained their residency in Canada. Moreover, foreign resistance recipients were required to return to Canada and resume residency within one year or risk losing their entitlement to war veterans benefits forever.

More specifically, section 6.1 provided grandfathering to those who qualified on or before March 2, 1992 and would continue for life if they remained residents in Canada. There were approximately 700 resistance claimants who returned to resume residency in Canada. For some this brought on certain hardships: separation from their families residing abroad, resettlement, isolation.

While Canada is the only country in the world to offer such an allowance to members of the resistance, the announced changes will bring on added hardships to all individuals who depend on this source of income.

Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the problem of transferring individuals between the ages of 60 and 65 from one social program to another. To date the government, through the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance, have shown sensitivity and understanding toward this problem, especially regarding those people who are not yet eligible for old age security.

Benefits were initially scheduled to be discontinued about three months after the budget was tabled. However through the interventions of myself and other members of Parliament we have been given the assurance these cuts will not go into effect until August 31, 1995.

I asked how much would the government really save by having a group of persons transferred from one social program to another, from war veterans allowance to welfare, or by having a group, the allied veterans, return to resume residence in Canada. There are about 740 in total living abroad. The average age of allied veterans is 75.

We must compare the social impact of such a move. Would we really save by having these people return to Canada and take advantage of our social programs including health care?

I consider the situation of these individuals as unjust and I made recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence on this issue, as have other members of the House.

There has been some concern that benefits are being paid out to persons who are no longer living. Therefore, I and other colleagues have made recommendations that individuals could register with the Canadian embassy in their respective countries.

I appreciate the government's interest in finding a just solution to this problem and thank the Minister of National Defence for agreeing to review this aspect of the program review in light of the difficulties these people will face in returning to Canada.

I will continue to work with many colleagues in the House, the Hellenic Canadian Congress, the veterans associations of the Hellenic community and other concerned parties to see the concerns of these individuals are addressed.

Canada has not forgotten the contributions these veterans made to the preservation of democracy during World War II. It is the only country to offer this type of allowance to former members of the resistance. I am proud that Canada offered this.

The issue of fraudulent claims has also been brought forward as a reason for terminating the allowance. While there may have been certain individuals who took advantage of the generosity in this program, the majority are deserving applicants. The government did not terminate the program because of the few individuals who took advantage of Canada's generosity.

Cost effectiveness was the reason this allowance was terminated. The targets will not be met when we consider the cost to be incurred once these individuals cross over to welfare.

Most significant in the budget is that it marks the beginning of a new era, a new way of managing the federation. It is a simpler, more efficient way that accords with provincial responsibilities to design and deliver key services. Many have seen this move as a move away from traditional Liberalism based on the principle of shared social responsibility.

Over the years successive Liberal governments have shown their commitment to this value through their actions. Many of the laws and policies they enacted remain the basis of our system of social support through which we pool our resources to create programs that benefit all Canadians and help sustain people through difficult times.

We are presently in difficult times. The test for our government will be to rise to the challenge and ensure the announced social program transfers will not jeopardize our standards of universal health care, unemployment insurance, old age security, the Canada assistance plan and the Canada pension plan.

These are part of the Liberal legacy and must remain in place if we are to continue to be the country that is the envy of the world. Poverty remains a growing problem for Canadian society as we try to overcome the economic challenges facing our country.

While the budget does not, as some members of the opposition would like to believe, make its cuts on the backs of our poor, their future must be brighter. Furthermore, the structure of the economy is changing. As a result the family structure is also undergoing changes. There have been enormous increases in single parent families and in families with both parents working and in families living in poverty, as is the case in my riding.

The failed economic and social policies of the Conservative government have left over 4.2 million Canadians living in poverty, of whom 1.2 million are children. Sixty-two per cent of families headed by single mothers are living in poverty with their incomes failing.

The Liberals made a commitment in the red book to work toward greater equality of social conditions among Canadians, to redistribute opportunity more broadly so that many more people have a decent standard of living and can build good lives for themselves and their families, allowing them to live with dignity and respect.

We must do everything we can to maintain our social programs at current levels despite expenditure cuts. Like all Canadians, we believe that we must strive to balance the budget. We will achieve this responsibly and realistically, without compromising the gains we have made over the last 16 months in the areas of job creation and economic growth, and without compromising the values and priorities of all Canadians and of the Liberal government.