Mauril Bélanger

[Committees of the House, February 6th, 2003]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, your committee has conducted a study and held hearings on the role and responsibilities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in developments in the area of Official Languages in Canada. On Tuesday, February 4 it agreed to report it.

The report contains five recommendations, three of which are essentially directed at the CRTC and two at the government, on which we are calling, pursuant to the Standing Orders, to table a response within the required period.

[Health, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Wednesday the Prime Minister and the premiers will meet in what could become an historical conference on the future of our health care. Canadians will hear their leaders talk about values and proper access to quality health care. I wish to raise an issue that has received far too little attention.

How does the Minister of Health plan to ensure that the anglophone minority in Quebec and the francophone minority in the other provinces and the territories will receive the same access to quality health care as other Canadians?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the difficulty I have with this approach is they are trying to give an impression that this is a temporary measure. I dare the government, and I understand it is not fair to the parliamentary secretary to the minister as she cannot give assurances today, that the Government of Canada help the city of Ottawa pay for these additional measures, the widened sidewalk, the 6,000 pound cement flowerpots and perhaps remove them in a year's time when the threat assessment should be reduced for whatever reason.

When talking about smoke and mirrors, it is not the case. We are not talking about something that is temporary. It is very much permanent.

It is a very serious question. At the time the decision was made to locate the embassy there, if the people of this city had been told that it would entail the massive security measures and the loss of two traffic lanes in the core of our city, never would they have agreed to have the embassy located where it is. It is time to move it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the current state of affairs as it pertains to the security measures that will be put in place on the streets of Ottawa adjacent to the U.S. embassy and its neighbours in the riding of Ottawa--Vanier.

I have asked the Solicitor General questions on a number of occasions. I am not totally satisfied with the responses.

I have some very serious reservations regarding the effectiveness of the security measures, the ones that are proposed, and whether or not the crux of the problem is actually being addressed. I repeat that I am not convinced that a buffer that can only be described as a widened sidewalk with 6,000 pound flower containers made of cement can safely deter any threat on the embassy and consequently provide an iota of additional safety to the constituents I represent in Ottawa--Vanier.

The RCMP has informed my office that in the event of a bomb blast, without the buffer the blast would seek the line of least resistance and create more damage across the street than if the bomb went off by the new extended sidewalk. I have also been told by the RCMP that in the event of a bomb blast, the collateral damage to the surrounding buildings would be enormous whether the buffer was there or not. The use of this buffer is tantamount therefore to using smoke and mirrors to disguise the real problem.

The U.S. embassy should never have been located in the core of our city. Everyone will agree that the embassy is a potential target. Whether it is a soft or a hard target as defined by the RCMP, it is still a target. We cannot ignore the vulnerability of its location on the neighbouring residences and businesses and the people who live and work there.

The security buffer that the city plans to put in place is supposed to be a temporary measure, but I believe we need to address the problem on a permanent basis, that being the miscalculated location of the embassy itself. I am not alone in these convictions. I would like to read some of the comments that were made at an open house hosted by the city of Ottawa on November 26.

The question put to the people was whether they agreed with the recommended solution, which is the buffer of 6,000 pound cement flowerpots and an extended sidewalk, removing a lane of traffic. Some of the responses were:

No, I honestly feel that they are not necessary. The federal government should have thought of this before allowing the U.S. embassy to be built in such a confined central and potentially vulnerable location. I fail to see how the closure of one lane on each street adds any more protection to the building.

No, any of these solutions provide only a perception of security. It would be impossible to provide total security to the embassy if it remains in that location. The measures that are proposed to increase the sense of security will have a negative impact on the aesthetic and traffic design of the area while doing little to actually increase the level of security.

No, I seriously doubt that the third lane will ever be used again for traffic. The most powerful nation will continue to face threats. I believe the U.S. embassy should be relocated to a site which is not surrounded by roads to conform with U.S. policy on the location of embassies.

I would like to conclude by reading an excerpt from a letter by the chargé d'affaires for the embassy of the United States of America to the National Capital Commission dated December 10, 1984:

The Department of State is re-examining its current chancery building plans in light of recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. facilities worldwide. The department has established more stringent security criteria which it is applying to all new building projects. After reviewing and applying these standards to our current plans, the department recently informed the embassy that the Sussex Drive site has very serious shortcomings from a security standpoint.

I and my colleagues voted in the House in the last budget billions of dollars to increase the security of Canadians. I believe that the residents of Ottawa--Vanier and of the national capital region are owed the same considerations as other Canadians. We need to seriously--

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on one amendment in particular, but before that, I would like to join my colleagues who have congratulated the Standing Committee on Health for the work it has done. It was given a particularly complex and difficult task. When one is dealing with a technical and scientific subject such as this, in the context of morals, it is difficult to prevent discussions from becoming very complex and emotionally charged. I would like to congratulate the members of the committee for their work.

I had an opportunity to speak to this bill during the last session, when it was known as Bill C-56. My comments today are essentially the same as they were then. I will keep them very broad, and then come back to amendment number 61, which is a new amendment.

I had expressed the hope, like some colleagues opposite, and from this side of the House, that the bill would establish a certain balance when it comes to legislating or developing a legislative framework in a very complex field, assisted reproduction, without necessarily closing every door. I had expressed some concern that, while wanting to do the right thing, I hoped that the bill was not too restrictive and that it did not prohibit everything.

We are in a situation where science and knowledge about genomes, particularly the human genome, may some day allow us to improve the situation. We may not be able to do so right now, but as a race, we will certainly try to do so. For example, we should not forgo the possibility of eliminating one of the 4,000 existing genetic diseases if it requires genetic treatment.

This was the type of concern I voiced at the time. I also recognized that since the legislation was to be reviewed periodically, we would be able to make adjustments based on scientific progress.

What I would like to comment on now is amendment number 61, moved by the member for Mississauga South. He is proposing that Bill C-13 be amended so as to add a provision that would add that, and I quote:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I currently chair the committee, and it is as Chair that I would like to address this issue. This is an amendment that I hope will be approved by all of the members of the House, with the exception, perhaps, of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He seems to systematically attack anything that has to do with official languages. I think it is important to comment on this amendment.

First, I think it is important to indicate the legislator's intent during debates on amendments to bills. There have been times when I have had to re-read past debates to find out the legislator's intent because it was not clear in the legislation. I think it should be said loud and clear that the legislator's intent, if I have understood it correctly, is to ensure that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act. This agency would be subject ipso facto to the Official Languages Act, and everything that entails.

I would like this noted so that in years to come, if there is disagreement or uncertainty, Hansard can be consulted and the intent known.

I talked to one of the members on the committee, the member for Saint-Lambert , who also moved an amendment, Motion No. 12. It was rejected by the committee members. I preferred what she proposed because it was explicit. She proposed that the agency be considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act.

I think this is important. Some may think it is not necessary. I would like to take a moment to examine this because I hold the opposite view. I think it is necessary.

Over the past few years we have seen restructuring in the institution, in the federal body, with the result that some of the Government of Canada's duties are delegated to other levels of government, namely the provinces and in some cases, the municipalities.

In Ontario we saw a classic example where the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament had passed legislation handing over the administration of contraventions to provincial organizations and institutions. The Province of Ontario in turn handed it over to the municipalities.

There was a case where a legal decision was rendered by Judge Blais, where the Government of Canada had not complied with the Official Languages Act because we had delegated too many of our responsibilities in terms of respecting the Act. The Department of Justice is currently putting this right. In fact, it asked for an extension until the spring to do so. We will see that this is put right.

A study was also conducted by Mr. Fontaine, president of the Université de Moncton, entitled the Fontaine Report. The eight members of the task force did an extraordinary job, so good that the government, through the president of the Treasury Board, has now created and implemented a new policy regarding the devolution of responsibilities with regard to the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.

This was to show that there is perhaps a need, in the minds of some people, to state the rights they had already acquired. But I think that, sometimes, being explicit is not a bad thing.

This was the case, during the previous session, in the bill to amend the Immigration Act. At first, there was some reluctance about amending this legislation. The Official Languages Commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee, suggested some amendments that were finally adopted and incorporated into the act. Already, significant progress can be seen with regard to complying with the principle of the linguistic duality of Canada in relation to the Immigration Act and its implementation.

This is another example of the benefit of referring to this principle in bills such as this one. When a new agency is created, it should be subject to the Official Languages Act.

I think that we should not ignore these things, and this is why I wanted to rise and take a few minutes of my hon. colleagues' and the House's time to make this explicit.

I will summarize, if I may. I sincerely hope that the government will agree to Motion No. 61. I certainly intend to vote in favour of this amendment. I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same because this way, legislators—meaning us, here today in the House—will clearly express their commitment to ensuring that this new agency, which will be created when this bill is passed and receives royal assent, will be considered a federal institution, subject to the Official Languages Act, with all the associated obligations, when it is called upon to serve the Canadian public by fulfilling the functions and responsibilities assigned it by the Parliament of Canada.

[Finance, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

The central bank rate has been set at the lowest levels we have seen in decades, at around 3%. At the same time, interest rates for popular credit cards such as Visa and MasterCard are hovering at 18%, six times the bank rate. Traditionally, credit cards have moved up and down with the bank rate and the spread has been around 10%, but not since 1995. The spread is now more than 16% at a time when consumer credit debt has achieved levels that are unsurpassed.

My question for the minister is, what is the Government of Canada doing to protect Canadian consumers from the avarice of our credit--

[Public Service, January 27th, 2003]

--must have picked up mind reading. They used to applaud after I had asked my question.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. At the beginning of the year, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt sent to thousands of public servants a bogus survey that targets the Official Languages Act and linguistic duality, which is a fundamental value of our country.

I would like to know what the government intends to do to set the record straight.

[Public Service, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues--

[French-Canadian Community, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate the French-Canadian community for two initiatives to provide French language health services.

First, I want to congratulate the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for successfully culminating its work on French language health services with the foundation, in early December, of the Société Santé en français. Under the leadership of Hubert Gauthier, president and CEO of the St-Boniface General Hospital, this organization will develop a national network for cooperation to help francophones in Canada gain access to French language health services.

Second, I want to congratulate the French Language Health Services Network of Eastern Ontario, which is celebrating its fifth anniversary. I want to salute the co-chairs of the interim committee, Pierre de Blois and Rolande Faucher, and the network's chairs, Jean-Claude LeBlanc, Jacques Schryburt and Edgar Gallant, as well as its executive directors, Jocelyne Lalonde and Normand Dupasquier.

I am very proud to see that French Canadians are creating their own networks and organizations, a sign of their vitality and their determination to obtain the services they deserve.

[Sports, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

We all agree, or at least should all agree, that it is perfectly legitimate for our athletes to be proud of the province or region they come from.

Will the secretary of state tell the House how he plans to ensure that national sports organizations respect this freedom of expression for our athletes?