Eleni Bakopanos

[Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the following statement appeared in the August 3 edition of the Toronto Star : ``I agree with Mr. Chrétien that a pequiste government would not be empowered to launch the negotiation process towards independence and that, contrary to the warnings given by provincial Liberals, the eventual election of the PQ does not

mean that Quebec will become independent. For once, I agree with those who support federalism".

That statement made by the Bloc Quebecois leader could not be more explicit. The fact that the PQ was elected does not give it any right to unilaterally declare Quebec's sovereignty in its draft bill before consulting the population through a referendum.

The Premier of Quebec must set aside his biased consultation process and quickly hold a real referendum, in which Quebecers will decide if they want to separate from Canada.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today and to show my colleagues and all Canadians that we can trust the government to keep its promises.

The red book mentions a future when all citizens, irrespective of race, gender or physical or intellectual capacity, will enjoy an equal standard of living and quality of life.

The bill before the House today will help ensure this will happen. In fact, we will reinforce the Employment Equity Act so that it also covers the public service and federal commissions and agencies. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will be given the power to conduct audits and enforce this legislation. Employers who do business with the federal government will be required to comply with the principle of the Act. By reinforcing the Employment Equity Act, the government is acting to promote its concept of Canada according to which all citizens must have an equal opportunity to share in Canada's prosperity.

The existing Employment Equity Act has been instrumental in making Canadians aware of the need to identify and eliminate barriers to the employment of designated groups.

For all the many milestones that have been achieved since its inception, however, there are still millions of Canadians who have yet to enjoy its benefits. Women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities continue to face enormous barriers to employment which prevent them from achieving their full potential.

As my colleagues pointed out earlier, a substantial number of companies covered by the act fail to satisfy the legislation's mandate, 171 of 348 firms. Almost half of the companies reporting last year did not have women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples or visible minorities represented in their workforce.

Too much of Canadian history has been blemished through such inequality among Canadians. It is time to write a new chapter in the evolution of employment equity.

In rewriting the law we are renewing our faith in the fundamental values that shape Canadian society, fairness, decency and justice for all. By renewing the legislation we will clarify employer obligations and strengthen employee opportunities. We are determined to strike a better balance that works to the advantage of all Canadians.

For the first time in Canada, public and private sector employers will be on an equal footing. The Public Service will be subject to the same rules as the private sector. All employers will be required to reflect the diversity of Canada's population in their labour force. We will extend the scope of the legislation to include the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The legislation will also apply to employers who do business with the federal government, which means that from now on they will have to comply with the principle of the Employment Equity Act. This legislation will also give new responsibilities to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission will have the authority to conduct audits in the workplace in order to force employers to comply with the Act.

The commission will also be empowered to take corrective action as needed. In cases of non compliance, the commission may refer the case to an employment equity review tribunal, whose decisions could be mandatory.

To balance the commission's regulatory authority, employers who wish to challenge its decisions will have a chance to plead their case before the tribunal.

The legislation clearly stipulates that tribunal rulings will not cause undue hardship for employers or require them to hire or promote unqualified individuals.

The amendments are also purposely designated not to increase the paper burden to employers. They are meant to act as an impetus, not an impediment to economic growth and job creation.

Enlightened Canadian employers are rapidly discovering for themselves that employment equity is a bonus in the workplace. Diversity is proving to be a competitive advantage in an increasingly complex global economy. Given demographic trends, employers have every reason to want to capitalize on the wealth of untapped talent in the designated groups.

By the year 2000, when Canada will experience a skill shortage caused by an aging population, two-thirds of newcomers to the workforce will be women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. Canadian employers cannot afford to overlook this vast labour pool any longer.

All Canadians will benefit as a result of this legislation, because its purpose is to ensure that all Canadians will have equal access to employment opportunities and advancement.

The bill before the House today states that workers are to be hired and promoted on the basis of ability. It provides that ability and merit must be taken into account to ensure employment equity, which can only improve the quality of our labour force.

In fact, employment equity is closely linked to social security reform. Social and economic progress cannot be dissociated from job creation and the integration of disadvantaged persons in the community.

The changes proposed in this bill are necessary, reasonable and fair.

We are convinced that an improved Employment Equity Act will give employers an opportunity to create more efficient and more effective workplaces.

In fact, these improvements will promote tolerance and respect for diversity and encourage a better appreciation of the rich diversity of our communities.

I commend the minister for his decision to send this piece of legislation to committee. I wish to cite some of my own experiences with the public service in Quebec where some legislation has been adopted.

L'Office des ressources humaines was faced with a target of 12 per cent hiring for members of the cultural communities visible minorities. The public service was unable to attain this level. We might ask why it was unable to attain this level, even though it was a promise made by the former Liberal government of that province.

The reason, after years of studies and years of reports, was that there was systemic discrimination. In other words, visible minorities, members of cultural communities, women and the handicapped were barred by a system that did not have the types of measures in it that would allow access to promotions or even to jobs within that system.

Many members opposite said that the merit principle has been forgotten and used words like reverse discrimination. My experience has led me to believe the proposals we are presenting will require that we succeed in removing the deep rooted systemic biases that exist in any system, especially in the public service.

We also need to assure that the Human Rights Commission will have the resources and the authority to ensure compliance with the legislation presented to the House.

Finally, with respect to downsizing, cuts will be made in many areas. I hope the groups we are discussing today will not be unduly hardshipped by the downsizing that is taking place at the moment, because a lot of them were newly arrived to the present system and are on contracts.

Our public service must reflect the reality of Canada. It must be representative of all the components of our society. We are not talking about merit here. Are hon. members on the other side of the House saying there are no qualified individuals in any of these four groups? Are there no women, no visible minorities, no handicapped people, no native people who are qualified for these positions? I doubt that reflects the reality. In fact there are many of them. However there is enough systemic discrimination in the system, enough biases in the system not to allow these qualified individuals to have access to our public service.

I would like the hon. members to take these facts into consideration.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Would you like me to repeat it in English?

If we have interpretation again, I would only like to repeat, as I said earlier, that I do not need a history lecture. I know the history of Canada.

I know what the history of this country is, the greatest country in the world. I want to repeat it.

I want to repeat that my parents chose to come to Quebec and Canada, and I am proud of it. I want to stay in a united Canada and I will fight for it. The Bloc Quebecois also has many history lessons to learn because history shows us that Quebec and Quebecers have really been quite well served by Canadian federalism.

We enjoy one of the best standards of living, we live in one of the best countries in the world. We really have a quality of life which is the envy of the world, and this is due to the unity of our country, to federalism which benefits Quebec. I wish to repeat that Nadia Assimopoulos, of whom you spoke, resigned from the Parti Quebecois because she was not in favour of the separation of Quebec. She is not a separatist, and never was.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, every time a member of the opposition rises, it is to give us a history lecture-that is not interesting. Thank you very much, we have all read the history of Quebec and Canada. This is why Canada was chosen twice as the best country in the world to live in-including Quebec and Quebecers.

I would also like to say, just in passing, since he brought it up, that a compatriot of mine told me that she quit the Parti Quebecois because she was not a separatist, she never supported separatism and she does not share that vision of society.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is for me, as a Canadian and a Quebecer by choice, a very sad day. It was 35 years ago that we chose Quebec and Canada. For 20 years now, I have been following Quebec's politics. About 15 years ago, I took part in the first Quebec referendum, where Quebecers indicated they did not want anything to do with sovereignty-association as it was called then, with separation as we would say today. They reasserted their sense of belonging to Canada and to our federation.

Over a year ago, I was elected to this House through a democratic process, but we now see for the first time ever a government that will decide unilaterally not to respect our democratic process. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec who said that this is not a consultation process, but rather a propaganda campaign, a subterfuge, an illusion. He added that the issue will be how, and not if, sovereignty will be achieved.

After promising to represent everyone, the leader of the Parti Quebecois has initiated a process which excludes Quebec's federalists, that is the majority of Quebecers. If the government really wanted to find out what everybody thought about its proposal, it would not have launched a consultation process that takes into account only one side of the issue.

The president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce himself has stated that he disagrees with these consultations. He said that the government will have to rethink the whole process. He added that, given the current situation, with only representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois sitting at the table, there would not be a balance in the views expressed and that it would make him very ill at ease.

The president of the Quebec manufacturers' association also decided not to take part in these consultations, because he thinks the draft bill is a sovereignty proposal and does not examine every possible option for Quebec.

Moreover, the presidents of the Quebec farmers' union and the Conseil du patronat also refused to take part in these consultations. These four examples clearly demonstrate that the PQ leader is not everybody's premier and that he only seeks the participation of separatists in this debate.

If he really was everybody's premier, he would have asked the clear and simple question that everyone can understand and answer: "Do you want to remain inside Canada, yes or no?" Unfortunately, this is not the case because he knows that the answer to this question would be no.

Finally, two of Quebec's most distinguished political scientists, Léon Dion and Vincent Lemieux, also severely criticized the PQ's breach of democracy. As reported on December 7, 1994, in La Presse, Mr. Dion said: "The process makes me very ill at ease. In such consultations, the public is often won over to a cause even before the process starts. In this case, it is Mr. Parizeau's cause."

The PQ leader continues to call himself everybody's premier and encourages everyone to take part in these consultations on the future of Quebec. At the same time, though, this draft bill does not include Quebec's cultural communities.

Last week, following many statements by members of the PQ government and their representatives, I rose here to ask the government to reaffirm unequivocally that members of cultural communities are, in fact, full citizens of our country. This draft bill confirms that the Parti Quebecois does not consider members of cultural communities as first-class citizens of Quebec.

Can the leader of the PQ government invite the cultural communities to build a new Quebec and then ignore them completely in his plan? Nothing is forcing the Parti Quebecois to subject Quebecers to an agonizing process. As my colleagues pointed out, Quebec is sovereign in all the areas under its jurisdiction. Quebecers live in one of the best countries in the world, a country they have built, a country they have chosen, just like my parents did. That country has evolved and Quebecers are part of this evolution.

Personally, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec said, and he will lead the campaign against separation before the next referendum in that province, that the process announced yesterday by the PQ government can only be democratic if it meets the following three conditions.

First, the process should be based on consultation, not on propaganda. The proposed process in unacceptable since it leads to a foregone conclusion. The solicited advice and discussions have one single purpose: to draft a declaration of sovereignty based on the proposals and suggestions that only supporters of separation will be interested in formulating.

Second, the approach used should focus the public debate on the real issue. The PQ is asking the people to discuss the content of the declaration of sovereignty instead of the advisability of separation in order to avoid the real question: is it in the best interests of Quebecers to separate from the rest of Canada? Not only is the desire of the Parti Quebecois to avoid this question dishonest, but it also shows that the PQ is afraid to hear what the answer of the majority of Quebecers to such a clear question would be.

Third, the process must be fair. In keeping with the spirit of Quebec's legislation on public consultations, both sides should have equal opportunities to put forward and explain their viewpoints. In practice, this means that both sides should have the same number of seats, the same resources and equal time.

Will Quebecers have an opportunity to make a decision on a clear question in the coming referendum? I doubt it.

The question proposed by the Parti Quebecois would ask the people of Quebec whether they are in favour of the Act passed by the National Assembly, which would define the features of Quebec sovereignty. It is a blank cheque the PQ government is asking for, because it knows very well that whole sections of the sovereignist plan would have to be negotiated with its partners in the years following the referendum.

Given these factors, and since I chose Quebec and Canada as my country, this is a very sad moment in the history of Quebec and since the democratic process is not being respected, I will vote against the Official Opposition's motion.

[Tragedy At L'École Polytechnique, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today is a day to remember and mourn the senseless killing, by a man, of 14 young women at l'École polytechnique. It is also a day to remember all the men, women and children who tragically lost their lives at the hands of armed people.

As parliamentarians, the memory of these innocent women reminds us that we must do everything possible to ensure that such violence does not happen again.

The new regulations on firearms tabled by the Minister of Justice are in response to the need to implement more stringent monitoring measures.

My sincere condolences to the families of the 14 Montrealers. I wish to let them know that their memory serves as a reminder to all of us that the status quo is no longer acceptable and that the government, through the Minister of Justice, has acted to protect the safety of all Canadians.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear the Bloc, the opposition, say the same thing over and over. They keep saying that this deficit reduction effort will be at the expense of the disadvantaged, yet they have no positive alternative plan to reduce this deficit we are faced with.

I would have a question for the hon. member. I would like him to suggest some truly specific ways of bringing the deficit down to three per cent of the gross national product, as we have promised to do and the Minister of Finance fully intends to do. I would really like him to tell us how exactly, within our global budget, as relates to social programs in particular, we could manage to streamline this deficit we are struggling with at present.

[Government Of Quebec, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the linguistic and cultural communities of Quebec are worried. In recent weeks, statements by certain Quebec government ministers and their officials have been increasing and have given rise to speculation and suspicion.

We were apprised yesterday of what Yves Michaud, Quebec chargé de mission in Paris, had written his boss and friend, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Landry. Referring to an article, he said it was refreshing compared to the claims of cultural communities, adding that we will have to do away with such nonsense reminiscent of Trudeau, cooked up to make us disappear in a sea of Canadian multiculturalism.

Louise Beaudoin, Quebec minister responsible for Canadian Affairs, was quoted as saying: "Why could I not live in my country as I wish, instead of as English Canadians want me to? They are the ones who want a multicultural society, not me".

This attitude of distrust toward ethno-cultural communities goes against every aspect of our international reputation for hospitality, openness and tolerance.

The Parti Quebecois government must quickly put an end to-

[Lebanon, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to draw attention to an important day for Canadians of Lebanese origin.

Yesterday marked the 51st anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of Lebanon. I wish to pay tribute to Lebanese-Canadians for the contribution they have made to this country since they immigrated here.

The importance that Canada places on its relationship with Lebanon was recently demonstrated with the announcement to reopen the Canadian embassy in Beirut in the new year. It is my hope that the peace being established in Lebanon will bring with it a renewed hope after much suffering.

I would like to extend my best wishes to all Lebanese-Canadians in my riding of Saint-Denis, and in particular to those who belong to the Quebec Lebanese-Syrian Association who recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the founding of their association.

Best wishes to all, ahid esteklell, merci beaucoup.

[National Child Day, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Canadians marked a day that is very important for the family unit and for society in general.

National Child Day is an opportunity for us to emphasize the importance of children in our society. We must all work hard to ensure that our children can lead happy and productive lives, because they are Canada's future.

It is our responsibility as members of this House and for many of us as parents to ensure that no child in Canada should have to live in poverty, die of hunger, suffer from sexual abuse or be a victim of child pornography or prostitution.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that community organizations in the riding of Saint-Denis are doing an incredible job in working with children. I would like to refer more particularly to what is being done by the Jouthèque de Villeray, which assists disadvantaged women and children in many ways.

Finally, I wish to commend the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on his contribution towards creating this important day.