Eugène Bellemare

[Juno Awards, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next Sunday, April 6, the 2003 Juno Awards will be presented here, in Canada's capital.

I am very pleased to acknowledge the active support of a number of agencies within the Canadian Heritage portfolio in connection with the 2003 Juno Awards. I would mention in particular the key role of the National Capital Commission in ensuring that the ceremony take place here, in our region.

The NCC's enthusiasm and excitement spread to the other agencies within the Canadian Heritage portfolio. As a result, the National Gallery of Canada, with its elegant glass structure, will host the Juno Awards opening ceremonies. The National Art Centre will present various concerts over the five days of activities.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization will host events showcasing children's music. As for the National Museum of Science and Technology and the National Archives, they will be organizing displays relating to the Juno Awards.

In addition, there will be concerts and activities at the National Library.

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth calling for a partial exemption from tax on the income received by artists from creative written works.

While I respect the enthusiasm of the hon. member in her representation of Canada's creative writers, I must reiterate that the proposed exemption would be unfair to other taxpayers who must pay tax on their total income. It would be difficult for the government to explain to other Canadians why artists, writers and performers should pay less than their share of tax than other individuals with comparable incomes.

The tax exemption proposed by the hon. member would lead to requests for similar treatment from other groups such as athletes or entertainers. It would be difficult for the government to justify restricting the exemption to only creative writers. Expanding the exemption to accommodate these additional taxpayers would be costly for the federal and provincial governments.

Furthermore, while it is easily argued that many low income writers have difficulty in earning a basic living from their works, it is not clear that high income artists are in need of or deserving of tax rate reductions. The proposed exemption would apply equally to both high and low income artists.

As members know, the government already provides direct support to a diverse community of artists. The government provides other support mechanisms outside the tax system to provide this incentive to create Canadian cultural products. Many government organizations, institutions, programs and policies are available to help Canadian artists, writers and performers in their pursuits. Various classes of artists, including writers, are supported indirectly through programs that are targeted to specific forms of cultural products rather than to classes of professions.

For example, grants, prizes and fellowships are provided through the Canada Council. I also note the National Film Board. Other programs that help writers indirectly are provided through Telefilm and the Canadian television fund. The cultural initiatives program helps artists to undertake arts and heritage activities that ensure a wider distribution of works and facilitates the circulation of artists and artistic achievements in Canada. The national arts training contribution program helps independent, non-profit organizations to train Canadians for professional artistic careers.

The tax system already provides support to artists, some of which indirectly supports the creation of literary works. The motion before us today would not be the most effective tool for achieving this result. It is not clear that creative writers have greater financial needs than other individuals with comparable incomes.

The tax system should treat Canadians fairly. A special tax exemption to individuals simply because they engage in artistic activities would be difficult to defend on equity grounds. It would also be difficult to justify any policy distinction as to which creative and interpretative artists should be eligible and which creative works should be tax exempt. Other groups would undoubtedly approach the government with requests for similar special treatment.

The correct approach to dealing with the tax burden of all Canadians is to treat all Canadians fairly. The general tax relief provided by the government and endorsed in the 2003 budget is the correct approach. The government's five year tax reduction plan provides real and significant tax relief to all Canadians.

It is my view that the motion put forward by the hon. member should not receive the support of the government at this time.

[Official Languages, March 28th, 2003]

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

In its decision on the application of the Contraventions Act in Ontario, the Federal Court ordered the federal government to modify its agreement with Ontario to ensure that linguistic rights set out in the Criminal Code and in the Official Languages Act are clearly mentioned.

Can the minister inform the House whether the agreement has been modified accordingly, and what measures the government plans on taking to ensure linguistic rights are respected in Ontario?

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this extremely important debate on respecting Canada's linguistic duality in health care.

Many hon. colleagues have spoken, and opinions vary. My colleague, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, talked about what Bill C-202 means to Manitobans. I would like to talk about the implications of this legislation for Franco-Ontarians.

The community I represent is very familiar with the debate on linguistic rights and health care. I would even say they are all too familiar with it. Most of my hon. colleagues know that Franco-Ontarians have had to fight tooth and nail over the past six years to assert their rights in health care. I am talking, naturally, about Montfort.

We learned a lot during the Montfort saga. I can only hope that the memory of this fight will force us to recognize the importance of Bill C-202. We cannot take our linguistic rights for granted: we must constantly defend them. We must be vigilant. We must add the sixth principle, to respect linguistic duality, to the Canada Health Act.

I want to repeat the chronology of events in the Montfort saga to illustrate the importance of learning from the past.

Six years ago, in February 1997, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission announced the closure of the Montfort Hospital, Ontario's only French language university hospital. Imagine the impact of that decision on the francophone community: no more hospital for francophones; no more on-the-job training for our health care professionals. From now on, everything would be done in English, would be translated, or would be done elsewhere than in Ottawa. This was a disastrous decision for our community.

Fortunately, the Franco-Ontarian community was quick to react. On March 22, 1997, one month after the commission's decision, that community rallied and unanimously asked the commission to reverse its decision. More than 10,000 people attended the rally to make their views known. The S.O.S. Montfort campaign had been launched just a few weeks earlier, but it was going full steam ahead with its slogan “Montfort, fermé: Jamais!”.

Later that year, the commission reversed its decision, but it did not do so in good faith. According to the new decision, Montfort would remain open, but several of its essential services, including emergency and special services, would be eliminated. This was, of course, unacceptable. Discussions continued for a year, without success. Finally, in August 1998, the community, represented by S.O.S. Montfort, went to court to plead its case.

Like every other Franco-Ontarian, I was glad to hear, in November 1999, that the courts had ruled in favour of Montfort. The Divisional Court of Ontario recognized that the closure of the Montfort hospital was unconstitutional. It was our first victory. I call it our “first” victory, because the Government of Ontario did not agree with the ruling and appealed it. Imagine. Ontario appealed the ruling. The community had to take up the fight again.

The Franco-Ontarian community persevered. There were great disappointments and memorable victories. It kept asserting its rights and was finally successful. On December 7, 2001, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the ruling handed down in November 1999.

Two months later, the Ontario government announced that it would not appeal that ruling. The Montfort hospital would not close its doors. Franco-Ontarians would maintain their right to health services in the official language of their choice.

The fight to keep Montfort has been long and hard. Let us keep that in mind. Why do we need to fight such battles to protect a right enshrined in the Constitution of our country, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

There is one lesson to be learned from the battle over Montfort. We cannot rely on the government's good intentions. We need guarantees enshrined in the law of the land. As parliamentarians, we have to protect our official language communities. We need to add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that of respecting Canada's linguistic duality in the delivery of health care services.

Let us vote in favour of Bill C-202.

[Parliament of Canada Act, March 17th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that would modify the oath of allegiance sworn by members of Parliament when they are elected.

At the present time, we swear allegiance to the Queen. I have no intention whatsoever of calling for the reference to the Queen to be taken out. What I am asking instead is for an addition, a proof of our pride and responsibility toward our constituents, the people of Canada. I therefore wish to add loyalty to Canada to the oath.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees of the House, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled “Taking the Necessary Measures to Enhance the Integrity of the Social Insurance Number: A Review of the Action Plan”.

I wish to read one of the many recommendations of the committee. The committee recommends that: “Human Resources Development Canada immediately require all new applicants for a social insurance number to provide, in addition to one of the currently accepted primary documents, one other document that contains a photograph of the applicant (e.g. passport, driver's licence, etc.) or, if photo identification is not possible, at least two other identification documents”.

[Petitions, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition on the definition of marriage signed by over 500 constituents from my riding.

They ask that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Black History Month, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, Black History Month is celebrated each year in February.

Would the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women inform the House as to what the government is doing to help Canadians celebrate Black History Month?

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first official report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Tax Fairness for Persons with Disabilities”.

More than a third of adults with disabilities say that they must cover additional costs associated with their disability that are not reimbursed by any public or private program.

The committee recommends, among other things, that the government review the eligibility criteria for the tax credit, as well as federal tax measures targeting the disabled.

[Parliament of Canada Act, December 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. members' comments. Their statements have one thing in common with my own and that is the respect we have for the Queen of Canada. I am in no way suggesting that we remove the word “queen” from the oath of allegiance. I am proposing that we add something, an affirmation of loyalty to our country.

We must respect those who have elected us. We must respect all Canadians who take the trouble to vote for their members of the House of Commons. We are accountable to the country and to our electors.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would consider asking the House if it would give unanimous approval to have my bill made votable.