Sarmite Bulte

[Estonia, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians of Estonian heritage are commemorating the 82nd anniversary of the declaration of independence of Estonia.

It is an anniversary that is foremost in the minds of all people who have been able to cast off the burden of foreign domination. Canada has played a major role in helping to re-establish democratic institutions in Estonia, in assisting Estonia to become a recognized member of the international community, and in providing infrastructure to make Estonia ready for membership in international security arrangements.

Estonians have played an important role in sharing their unique cultural attributes with all Canadians. I recognize the vital importance that Esto 2000, the Estonian world festival, will be to Toronto's cultural scene this coming July.

The song, dance and gymnastic festivals and other festivities will be followed with great interest by all Canadians.

May we wish Canadians of Estonian heritage success in all their endeavours during Esto 2000 and may the independence of Estonia be commemorated for generations to come. Elagu Eesti .

[Petitions, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents who urge the Government of Canada do everything possible to end child poverty. These two petitions are exactly the same in nature.

[Heritage Day, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today is Heritage Day, a special day set aside each year to recognize and increase awareness of the country's diverse heritage.

Each Heritage Day celebrates a different aspect of the people, places and events that have helped to shape our country. This year's theme is our farming heritage and it focuses on two areas: the heritage of place, the buildings and the sites across Canada that reflect our farming history, and the important story of the growth and production of food in Canada.

In my riding on Saturday, February 19, I had the pleasure of co-hosting the Heritage Day celebrations at the Parkdale Public Library. Our celebrations began with the Parkdale Collegiate Institute ensemble, followed by performances by the Portuguese, Tamil, Indian, Mexican and Estonian communities.

The afternoon gave my constituents the opportunity to celebrate and share in the country's diverse heritage by celebrating the diverse and rich cultures of our country.

[Auditor General Act, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, epidermolysis bullosa or EB is a group of rare and debilitating genetic skin diseases in which the skin and mucous membranes are so sensitive that the slightest touch may cause painful blistering. EB is a lifelong disease often present at birth, which causes severe physical, emotional and financial hardships for the affected persons and their families.

There are two types of EB, non-scarring and scarring. The non-scarring type varies in form from the severity of seasonal blistering in the hands and feet to widespread blistering during much of the year. In some cases blisters appear over 75% of the body inside and out.

Even the mildest form can transform simple tasks such as walking and typing into impossible ordeals. Open sores and blisters that heal slowly if at all characterize the most severe form of EB. This continuous blistering leads to scarring causing disfigurement and immobilization of fingers, toes, arms and/or legs. Blisters that form in the mouth, oesophagus, throat and stomach cause serious complications leading to secondary infection, anemia and malnutrition, general debilitation, cancer and premature death.

When I think of EB I think of the courage displayed by those who suffer from EB. I think of the pain and frustration, the shame, the guilt and the toll it takes on one's self-esteem and self-confidence. I think of the parents of children such as the Foreman family whose son Quinn was diagnosed when he was five weeks old. Approximately 70% of his body was covered in blisters.

Through Mrs. Foreman's letters I have come to understand how their lives were turned upside down. Due to the lack of awareness by both the public and the medical profession, the diagnosis for Quinn was very slow in coming. For nearly five months Quinn was fed through a syringe because his mouth and throat were completely covered with blisters, but this child's suffering did not end there. He lost all his fingernails and toenails.

It seemed as though every time Quinn was picked up by one of his parents, he received a new blister. From then on the only time his parents picked him up was to feed or change him.

Mrs. Foreman describes the hardest part of this ordeal was having to break the blisters and bandage him up as if he were a burn victim. This process took approximately two hours every day.

When I think of EB and EB sufferers, I think of the almost total lack of services and support offered to those who live with this disease every day. I think of the measures taken by parents seeking a miracle which often involves going to the United States or abroad, where governments have invested in research into this illness and have attempted to treat its symptoms with procedures such as apligraf.

The parents of these infants are provided with little information, if any at all, about the disease at birth. A diagnosis is rarely arrived at easily.

When I think of EB, I think of my constituent Kevin Campbell. Both Kevin and his sister inherited this disease. Kevin is a perfect example of the hidden potential and ability that people with EB possess. If it were not for Kevin's initiatives to raise awareness of EB for all Canadians who suffer from it, there may not be the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association, more commonly known as Debra Canada. And I would not have joined this fight to raise awareness of EB in the House of Commons.

Living with EB means being engaged in a never ending battle to educate. My question is for the Minister of Health. What steps are being taken by his department to encourage and facilitate research and development into the cure and treatment of Canadians suffering from EB?

[Lithuanian Independence Day, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today the people of Lithuania and Lithuanian Canadians are celebrating the occasion of the 82nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Canada has always had a very positive relationship with Lithuania. This is partly due to our steadfast refusal to recognize the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and also our rapid recognition of re-independence in 1990.

Canada's active Lithuania Canadian community has also greatly contributed to fostering exchanges and maintaining the friendship between our countries. The cultural and diplomatic ties between our countries have been fostered and strengthened over time through the twinning of cities, military co-operation through NATO's partnership for peace, as well as trade investment initiatives such as the Baltic express mission in 1998. The government is currently planning a follow-up Baltic express mission which will take place in September of this year.

I would like to offer my congratulations to President Adamkus, the Lithuanian parliament and to the people of Lithuania on this momentous occasion.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act. I begin by commending the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for their joint efforts, co-operation and collaboration in enabling the government to table this omnibus legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is straightforward. The bill will amend legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships. Same sex partners will be included in the new definition of common law partners. They will be granted the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common law partners. Same sex spouses who have lived together for at least one year will qualify for benefits, the same length of time as common law spouses.

Bill C-23 will amend 68 federal statutes, affecting 20 federal departments and agencies. The legislation affected covers a wide range of subject matter, from the Bank Act to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to the criminal code and the Firearms Act, the Indian Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Trade Unions Act and the War Veterans Allowances Act, just to name a few statutes.

The proposed changes are about fairness. The changes are not about granting special rights; they are about equality before the law. The changes are about fairness, tolerance and non-discrimination. These changes are a reminder to us all that it is not acceptable to discriminate against any person at any time or at any place.

The proposed changes will ensure that our laws reflect the values of Canadians, and Canadian values, values that are enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When we speak about the values of Canadians it is not surprising to find that the majority of Canadians believe, as I do, that same sex couples should receive equal treatment. According to an Angus Reid poll taken in September 1999, 67% of Canadians agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations as a man and woman living together as common law partners. Regional support was broken down as follows: in my province of Ontario, 66% of Canadians were in support; in B.C. support was at 68%; and in Atlantic Canada support was at a high of 75%.

While I would like to applaud the federal government for taking bold leadership on this issue, unfortunately I cannot do so. On the day the bill was introduced in the House of Commons the Minister of Justice stated: “Canadians are probably way ahead of legislators on this issue”.

These changes come almost a year after a Supreme Court of Canada decision ruled that same sex common law couples are entitled to the same benefits under family law as heterosexual couples. On Friday the Minister of Justice confirmed that the court gave the government the direction in which it needed to go.

Both federally and provincially there have been many challenges before courts and human rights tribunals regarding the benefits of same sex couples. In its May 1999 ruling in M. v H. the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that government cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. Denying equal treatment before the law to same sex common law partners is contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997 B.C. has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to add same sex couples. In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex common law spouses. In October 1999 in Ontario, to comply with the supreme court decision in M. v H., the Harris government passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.

However, this is not the first time the federal government has passed legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners. In fact parliament passed Bill C-78, which extended survivor's pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service employees. All three territories and a number of other provinces have also passed similar legislation. These provinces include Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

It should also be noted that Bill C-23 will not have an impact on the private sector. However, it is equally worthy to note that over 200 private sector employers have already extended work related benefits, such as dental care and pension benefits, to same sex partners for their employees, as do most municipalities, hospitals, libraries and community and social service institutions across Canada.

It is incumbent upon the federal government to act now. While some of the provinces have amended their statutes, Canadians must remember that under the Constitution Act, 1867 legislative jurisdiction is divided between the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures. For example, Ontario amended 67 provincial laws that were the exclusive responsibility of the province, most notably the Family Law Act. This omnibus bill tabled by the government will amend only federal statutes.

Let me give some specific examples. Under the Income Tax Act a married person or a common law opposite sex partner may claim a tax credit for a dependent spouse or partner. The changes would provide that a same sex partner may also now claim the tax credit for a dependent partner.

Under the Old Age Security Act a married person or a common law opposite sex partner may claim an income supplement depending on the combined income of both partners. The changes that were tabled today would provide an income supplement claim for a same sex partner, but it would also be based on combined income.

We can see from the two examples I have used that the bill strikes a balance by extending both benefits and obligations to committed same sex couples.

I would like to give another example to illustrate the point I have just made about this balance. A household's income is one of the criteria used to determine a common law couple's eligibility for the GST or the HST tax credit. Because our laws do not presently recognize committed same sex relationships, individuals in such relationships can claim eligibility for these tax credits based on their personal income. Under the proposed legislation their eligibility would be calculated based on combined income, representing, in total, some savings for the government. On the other hand, we estimate that awarding survivor's benefits to surviving partners of committed same sex partners will represent a modest cost to the CPP. However, overall we estimate that the fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal, if at all.

Recent court rulings have confirmed for legislatures the need to address the constitutionality of certain laws that discriminate against same sex couples.

As parliamentarians it is our responsibility to amend these statutes to ensure they conform with the charter. In the absence of legislative action the courts will continue to address cases in a piecemeal fashion. The status quo is not an option. It promises confusion, unfairness, and continuing and costly litigation. Equally important, it risks making the courts the arbiters of social policy.

Our proposed bill affirms parliament's primary responsibility for social policy. It provides a responsible, balanced and legally sound framework within which to address recent court decisions and, most importantly, to ensure that same sex couples receive fair and equal treatment under the law.

[Trade, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

On Friday the World Trade Organization released its decision regarding Canada's auto pact claiming that it gives favourable treatment to U.S. manufacturers while discriminating against other manufacturers.

Can the minister tell the House on what basis does he plan to appeal the decision?

[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 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the events which led to Bill C-20. Before I do so I would like to inform the House of a message that I received from my constituents during the recess. They were strongly in favour of this bill. In fact there were a number of my constituents who came to me and asked why it had taken our government so long to table this legislation.

I would like to look back to the circumstances of the 1995 referendum to explain why our government decided to table Bill C-20. I note that some of my colleagues noted that we do not take great joy in having to take such a step, but we do so because the separatist leaders continue to brandish the threat of another referendum on separation.

Let us look back for a moment to the 1994 general election in Quebec, which was won by the Parti Quebecois. At that time the PQ strategy was to jumpstart the process leading up to Quebec separation, even before Quebecers had a chance to vote on it in a referendum. Then Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau claimed that Quebec had a right to self-determination, which would allow it to separate from Canada unilaterally. Draft legislation along those lines was actually tabled in the national assembly.

In an attempt to whip up support for its option the Parizeau government struck numerous political commissions in every region of the province. Following several weeks of so-called consultations the commissions reported back to the national commission on the future of Quebec, which submitted a report to the PQ government on April 19, 1995. That was also the time of the notorious Le Hir reports, which would become one of the most incredible propaganda exercises ever undertaken in Quebec's history.

In the spring of 1995 Mr. Parizeau's Parti Quebecois changed tack regarding the referendum question, deciding to adopt a vague concept of association included in an eventual question. And so, the sovereignty partnership was born.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Parizeau had hitherto opposed any such concept, wanting instead to concentrate on sovereignty. In an interview in 1990 he stated:

As far as I'm concerned, the question that should be asked the next time around ought to be on Quebec sovereignty, not on “Do you authorize us to negotiate to see whether....” No, no. I think it has to be clear....We've now come to the point where we have to ask Quebecers how they feel about sovereignty.

Faced with certain defeat in the referendum, he chose instead, for political reasons, to adopt this concept of partnership.

On June 12, 1995, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard, then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, signed a tripartite agreement on that basis. Under that agreement the Government of Quebec, following a vote in favour of its option, would undertake negotiations with the rest of Canada to establish a political and economic partnership. Those negotiations would be limited to one year at the most, at which time sovereignty would be proclaimed whether or not a partnership had been concluded. The agreement also stipulated that the Government of Quebec could terminate the negotiations at any time if it deemed they were not progressing quickly enough.

After having told a diplomat that the referendum process was like a lobster trap that Quebecers could not get out of, Mr. Parizeau was now hiding his true intentions. Despite this new partnership spin, all he really wanted was a yes vote that he could then use to make a unilateral declaration of independence.

This is not conjecture on my part. The proof is there.

On the very day of the referendum, Mr. Parizeau taped a televised message to the population in which he clearly stated his intention of going ahead with a unilateral declaration of independence. He confirmed that intention in his memoirs. It is there in black and white on page 286. He stated:

It will be noted that any speeches I have made pertaining to negotiations with Canada have been so worded to allow for such a declaration of sovereignty. And I have never made any undertaking, either in public or in private, not to make a unilateral declaration of sovereignty.

That is what the famous concept of partnership really boiled down to.

Anybody could have had their own interpretation of this concept, but Mr. Parizeau would have thrown the concept out the window at the first opportunity. Fortunately, he never got that chance because a majority of Quebecers refused to fall into that trap.

The confusion surrounding a unilateral declaration of independence says a lot about the agreement of June 12, 1995, which was one of the cornerstones of the yes side's referendum campaign in 1995. Mr. Dumont, who was one of the signatories to the agreement, stated recently that he has never been a sovereignist.

As for Mr. Parizeau, he went on to make yet another statement in his typical style. He wrote:

It's often been said that the question in 1995 wasn't clear. It's true, as I've said many times, that the question I would have preferred was the following: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign (or independent) country as of...?

There we have Mr. Parizeau's deep-rooted conviction about the concept of partnership. It is noteworthy that the only time Mr. Parizeau ever toned down his hard line separatist rhetoric was at the very time he was in a position to put it into practice.

What was the question that was asked in the end? It was set out in Bill 1, an act respecting the future of Quebec, and it reads as follows:

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?

Right away we can see a key difference in comparison with the referendum process that was undertaken in 1980. Unlike that earlier process, the Government of Quebec provided for only one referendum in 1995. Let us bear in mind that under the latter formula sovereignty was not conditional upon a political and economic partnership with the rest of Canada. Whether or not any agreement were reached with the rest of the country, sovereignty would be inevitable. It would come about no matter what happened, and Quebecers would have no say on the final product. There would be no second vote.

In an attempt to clarify the question, the Quebec Liberal Party proposed a number of amendments to Bill 1. All of those amendments were rejected by the PQ government. At the same time, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the question was ambiguous and that a majority of 50% plus one would be too small to effect sovereignty. We all know the outcome.

On October 30, 1995, 50.48% of Quebec voters answered no, while 49.42% voted yes. Of special note are poll results obtained in the last days of the campaign, indicating that one out of five yes voters truly believed that Quebec would still remain a Canadian province in the event of a yes victory. The separatist leaders' campaign of smoke and mirrors worked very effectively.

For all of those reasons our government is duty bound to act now to ensure that Quebecers will not have to bankroll yet another misinformation campaign to get them to support separation, an option which they have twice rejected.

The purpose of the bill tabled by the intergovernmental affairs minister is to ensure that the referendum process is clear and that Quebecers can make a choice secure in the knowledge that all the cards are well and truly laid on the table. They have the right to vote on a clear option and a crystal clear question. They are entitled to the assurance that they will never lose their Canadian citizenship and all of the other advantages they enjoy as Canadians, unless they have renounced Canada loud and clear.

This is the purpose of the clarity act. As its name suggests it seeks to ensure that the choice to be made is clear to everyone. Since the separatist leaders will not support that objective, our government has decided to enact legislation to ensure that our democratic tradition is not usurped by double talk and double dealing.

[Polish Combatants Association, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago more than 1.7 million Polish soldiers and citizens were arrested and deported simply because they were Polish. The men and women who were taken by the Soviet Secret Police were sent to the far reaches of the Soviet Union to work in forced labour camps or placed in political prisons where many were executed or died of hunger, cold, disease and exhaustion during the second world war.

Tonight at the Polish Combatants Association, the Toronto branch of the Alliance of the Polish Eastern Provinces and its president, Mr. Wladyslaw Dziemianczuk, as well as the Polish Canadian community of Parkdale—High Park, will commemorate this tragic event at a ceremony where a memorial plaque will be unveiled.

Dedicated to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, it will serve to remind future generations of the horrors of war and the cost of the freedoms that others are able to enjoy today because of their sacrifice.

[Genie Awards, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago a small group of filmmakers had an idea to help foster the development and promotion of the feature film industry in Canada by founding the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television and establishing the Genie Awards. On January 30, 2000 the Genies celebrated their 20th anniversary.

In 20 years we have all witnessed the outstanding growth to the Canadian film industry. However, Canadian films command only 2% to 3% of the Canadian national box office. This figure clearly demonstrates the need for increased support to take Canada from a producer of world respected art films to a globally competitive producer and exporter of popular and entertaining films that are undeniably Canadian in content.

I would like to commend the academy, Telefilm Canada, CBC Television and Canadian Heritage for their support of our national film awards, and I congratulate this year's award nominees and recipients for their dedication to the art and craft of Canadian film.