Mauril Bélanger

[Leonard Peltier, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I respect what I have just heard, but it is very much more of the same. It is a bit of stonewalling.

I am not asking, and I do not think anybody is asking, for the RCMP to say why it thinks there is a risk and so on and so forth, but I think the government is avoiding the question I am trying to ask it. If indeed there is a threat, and there would be if these things are maintained, is that threat, by having these barriers pushing away any attacks from the embassy, putting our citizens at greater risk? That has to be addressed, because what I am hearing is certainly not addressing that. If indeed we are putting our citizens at greater risk, then we have to look at another long term solution than just putting up barricades, widening the sidewalk, or whatever.

This is an important issue. I understand that we have a very good relationship with our neighbours to the south. At the same time, as the member of Parliament for Ottawa--Vanier, I have to be and the government has to be cognizant of whether or not we are putting our citizens at risk. If we are, then we have to address that with a long term solution.

[Leonard Peltier, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a little while ago I asked a question of the Solicitor General concerning an ongoing situation in the riding I represent, Ottawa--Vanier, and the Embassy of the United States of America.

As we all know, those of us who live in this community, shortly after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, barriers went up around the embassy. There is some debate as to whether they went up because of that or at the request of the embassy as a precaution for the G-20 meeting which was to occur later that year.

Since then I have been able to ascertain somewhat the initiative behind this. I am going to quote a response from the general manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, General Manager Leclair, from the City of Ottawa, in response to a question from a city councillor. This is a memo dated February 7, 2002, which states:

On 30 October 2001, at the request of the RCMP, staff from TUPW and Police Services met U.S. Embassy officials to discuss the need for upgraded security measures. At that meeting, officials of the Embassy requested that all necessary precautions be taken to protect their assets, including:

1. Installing jersey barrier along Sussex Drive to close the westerly curb lane between Murray Street and the northerly crosswalk at York Street;

2. Installing jersey barrier along Mackenzie Avenue to close the easterly curb lane between Murray Street and the pedestrian staircase leading to York Street; and,

3. Changing the most westerly block of Clarence Street (between Sussex Drive and Parent Street) from two-way to one-way eastbound operation.

The final line that I wish to quote from that report is the next one, which states:

The message heard throughout the meeting was that these changes were “precautionary” and “temporary” and that the RCMP would review the need for the barricades on a regular basis.

Since then, I have asked that question of the Solicitor General, both in the House and outside the House, and each time I get the same responses, such as, “We can't comment” or “Well, not in the foreseeable future”.

This is a rather delicate matter. I am aware of that and I am not asking that security authorities in this country or the City of Ottawa Police divulge information that could prejudice the safety of our American friends here in our capital. No, but on the other hand, I think we must be cognizant of the impact this is having and of the potential impact.

In 1985, if I am not mistaken, the United States adopted a policy whereby its embassies must be at least 25 metres from roadways and have no underground parking. This embassy is about five metres from roadways on both sides and has underground parking, so there is a disconnect here in terms of policy and reality. I am concerned about the safety of the residents of Ottawa, and the residents of Ottawa--Vanier in particular, who are living in that area or working in that area, not just the people who work in the American embassy.

I have asked the question about whether we are concerned about this. This building was built in the nineties. It is a very strongly built building, a very secure building, and it was built to withstand such potential attacks. But the buildings in the vicinity are not. By directing any possible attack further away from the embassy and bringing it closer to people and buildings in the vicinity of the embassy, are we not, by protecting the embassy and the people who work in it, also putting our people at greater risk?

I am concerned about that and I would like the government to deal with that issue. If we are told that this is going to be a long term thing, because we cannot ignore the international situation and it is likely that it could indeed be a long term, permanent thing, then I think it behooves us to ask another question. Should the embassy be in another location? That is what I think the government is going to have to come to grips with and address at some point. This obviously is an issue that is not going to go away and it is one on which information has to be shared a little better than it has been up to now.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am unable to make a 10 minute speech, so I want to use this opportunity to comment.

This summer I read the subcommittee report being discussed here and I support it wholeheartedly. I wrote to various ministers at the time to indicate such support, so I must admit that it would be rather untoward for me at this point to vote against the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today. I want to thank the New Democratic Party for bringing this up in an opposition day setting, because I think the work of the subcommittee is to be applauded. We must make sure as a country that we are taking care of those who need some assistance and some help.

Having said that, I think we have to be careful that things are not open ended. If and when the matter of the court decision is addressed, I believe that there have to be some consultations and some measures taken to make sure that any tax measure is not open ended, thus subjecting the rest of Canadians to an incredible tax burden without us having made the decision that it be so. I believe that there is enough wherewithal in the House and in the government to mix those two positions together so that we would end up with a very valid disability tax credit system but one that at the same time respects fiscal integrity.

I will follow the rest of this debate with great care because I believe it is an important one. Again, I am happy that it has been introduced today by the NDP as an opposition day motion and I look forward to tomorrow's vote.

[Order of the Legion of Honour, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier and Mrs. Gisèle Lalonde will receive the Order of the Legion of Honour from the French government. On the same occasion, Jean Poirier will be promoted within this order, and made an Officer of the National Order of Merit.

This is one of the most prestigious honours in the francophone community. It is well deserved by these three individuals who have been devoted to the Canadian Francophonie for many years.

We are all grateful for the work that Senator Gauthier, Mrs. Lalonde and Mr. Poirier have done.

I regret not being able to attend this evening's ceremony, which the embassy has described as an opportunity to pay tribute to the entire Franco-Ontarian community.

I wish, however, to thank these three French Canadians from Ontario for their involvement and to congratulate them on this well-deserved decoration.

[Crown Corporations, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked a question on the problem posed by the fact that a number of businesses refuse to accept $100 and $50 bills. Today, I am putting a modified version of my question to the minister responsible for crown corporations.

Is there a policy requiring crown corporations to accept the money printed by the Crown? If so, are agents of crown corporations, such as postal outlets, required to comply with this obligation, and if not, what action will the government take in the coming months to settle the issue?

[Currency, October 29th, 2002]

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

A growing number of businesses are refusing to accept $100 bills and even $50 bills even though these bills are legal tender. In one case in particular that was brought to my attention, the refusal was from a postal outlet, an agent of a crown corporation, from the same government issuing these legal bills.

My question is simple. What is being done to put an end to this aggravating situation?

[Terrorism, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, cement barriers went up around the American embassy here in Ottawa. We were told that they were erected in order to provide greater distance from the street in the event of a car or truck bomb attack thereby providing greater security for the people in the embassy.

My question is for the Solicitor General. In providing greater protection for the people in the embassy, are we not, by the same token, putting the Canadians neighbouring the embassy at greater risk? If not, what assurances can he give us to that effect?

[International Literacy Day, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to highlight International Literacy Day.

Once again this year nearly 100 adult learners, teachers and volunteers from literacy groups are on Parliament Hill to make us aware of the needs of people to combat illiteracy in this country. According to Statistics Canada, 22% of Canadians have difficulty reading simple text. It is simply unacceptable.

We must all work together to ensure that Canadians have the tools they need to be full participants in the social, economic and cultural life of our country, as well as in the age of information.

Canada is blessed with many extraordinarily talented writers, including Yann Martel, who won the Booker Prize this week for his book, Life of Pi . It is unfortunate that some Canadians do not read, it is tragic that some cannot read.

Let us all contribute to--

[Biotechnology, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in March I asked the Minister of Industry a question about patenting for human genes.

In his answer, the minister said he was awaiting a report from the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee, which he received this summer.

Last week, a senior official was quoted as saying that “the government was prepared to reaffirm its opposition to patenting forms of life”.

Does this opposition to patenting life forms also apply to patenting human genes?

[Canada Health Act, October 2nd, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, I wish to return to the Order Paper my bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Health Act for first reading today.

This bill is identical to the one I introduced during the last session, at which time it was known as Bill C-407. I would like to see the bill revived during this session and placed at the same point in the order of precedence where it was when Parliament was prorogued.

I thank the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for seconding it. This bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that of respecting Canada's linguistic duality.

This is an important bill for all linguistic minorities across the country. I look forward to the three hours of debate and the vote further on in this session.

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