Mauril Bélanger

[Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of attending a ceremony held last week by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews.

Good Servant medals were awarded to three impressive Ottawa teenagers: Tara Ogaick, Michelle Divon and Lana Ayoub.

As the daughters of an ambassador from Jordan, an ambassador from Israel and a former diplomat in Saudi Arabia, these three young Ashbury College students embarked on a diplomatic mission of their own in the halls and auditoriums of Ottawa high schools.

By sharing their remarkable life stories with other students, Lana, Michelle and Tara promote dialogue and better understanding of different cultures, with a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli relations at large.

In a world fraught with conflict and tension, we should be heartened by the efforts of Lana, Michelle and Tara. They show us that the next generation is ready and able to promote dialogue and peace.

As parliamentarians, we should all congratulate and encourage them. I congratulate them and welcome them.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

There will be a need to define privilege and how it relates to Canadian law.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, may I finish my sentence?

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for introducing the bill and persisting with it. It has been a long journey to get the House to pronounce itself on the bill.

I would like to indicate to the member right off the bat that I intend to vote in favour of the bill. I believe that the principle is one that merits debate at the committee stage. It merits some attention and some detailed work, because there may be aspects of what the member proposes that perhaps should be modified. I think that the notion put forward here is one that has the merit that I explained and it deserves attention and closer scrutiny at committee.

I believe it touches indirectly also a very vital issue: that of defining privilege and how it relates to the legislation that we in this House and senators in the other House pass and which eventually becomes the law of the land. We have seen too many incidents of situations where there is a conflict between this legislation and questions of privilege.

I am personally involved in a case connected with the Official Languages Act and the House of Commons, the Quigley case. We know there was another case involving both the House of Commons and another Canadian law.

I hope that the hon. members will take advantage of this opportunity to refer it to committee for more thorough debate.

I would like to invite the member who is sponsoring the bill to reflect also on the possibility that, indeed, should the bill not pass--

[Question No. 170, April 2nd, 2003]

In Quigley v. Canada House of Commons, now before the Federal Court of Appeal, Docket No. A-399-02, how much has been spent on lawyers' fees, consultation fees and all other expenditures related to the defence of the House of Commons in this matter, at the trial level and in appeal preparations, since the start of the recourse?

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 2003]

After we cut our own.

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. From our past work when we sat on the heritage committee in the 35th Parliament, I believe, and dealt with Bill C-32, the copyright legislation, she knows where my belief and conviction lie in terms of helping the artist. I introduced four amendments to that legislation, which substantially tilted the act toward the creator's side of it. I say that as a prelude to my question.

I believe there are two significant pillars to any civilization. In my opinion, arts and sciences are these two pillars. In both of these areas of human endeavour, there is a similar protection for the creator. As the member has identified, on the artistic side a number of legal mechanisms protect the copyright of these people, whether they be neighbouring rights or actual copyright and so forth. The same thing is true on the creative side for the sciences in that people who invent or innovate can obtain patents to protect their intellectual property.

How are we to determine, therefore, that one should have a tax exempt status and not the other?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), the committee has considered and held hearings on the application of the Official Languages Act and the Contraventions Act and agreed on Wednesday, March 19, to report on it. This matter was brought to the attention of the committee by the member for Lanark—Carleton.

The committee's recommendation is that, essentially, Justice Canada take whatever legislative and regulatory means it has at its disposal to ensure that language rights protected under sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code and part IV of the Official Languages Act be respected.

Finally, the committee is asking for a response from the government.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the motion by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health be agreed to, on division, this very evening.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to understand clearly what is happening right now. If a recorded division were required, it would be held tomorrow, but if this evening the House were to decide to adopt the motion, on division, it would be fine? I want to make sure I understand.