Mauril Bélanger

[School Management, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Even though education comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is prepared to help Ontario's official language minority by managing its schools under the terms of an agreement signed last week.

Could the minister tell us how this agreement differs from similar ones signed with other provincial governments?

[Correctional Service Canada, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general recently announced that Correctional Service Canada would hire 1,000 new correctional officers for penitentiaries across the country. He has also said he believes that we already incarcerate too many people in Canada.

How does the minister or his parliamentary secretary reconcile the desire to put fewer offenders in jail with their hiring of 1,000 new correctional officers?

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite has just said that I was forced to do something and that is totally inaccurate and misleading.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to provide details on a bit of a debate that arose in connection with the deliberations of the committee on Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada agency.

As I sit on this committee, I had an opportunity to be in on discussions and even, at one point, to introduce an amendment. I would like to speak about this amendment today.

The aim of the amendment was to have the Official Languages Act, a cornerstone of public policy in this country on respect for linguistic duality, apply in its entirety to the bill establishing the Parks Canada agency. I would first like to repeat the remarks I made in introducing the amendment in committee.

First off, I have to say I am no expert, that my area of expertise is not legislative drafting. So, if changes are required to clarify thinking or the scope the committee wishes to give this amendment, if it agrees to it, naturally, I have no problem.

I have to say here that the intent of this amendment was to make it clear the Official Languages Act applied to the bill before us at the time.

As I said, since I am no expert in drafting bills, I asked the government to simply follow the discussions and, if the proposed amendment were passed, ensure that it was improved, if necessary, to really define the scope of debate and accurately represent the committee's intent in the debate that preceded the vote on the amendment. This was done. That said, the debate took place May 12.

What was said in the debate is important. Discussions in committee even raised the question of whether the person painting a fence, cutting the grass or collecting garbage had to do so in both official languages. Absolutely not. That was clear during the debate.

We were referring to services to the public and a majority of committee members felt that, if the agency were created, it could not be exempted from the obligation to provide services to the public in both official languages, even if it called on a third party or subcontractor to provide services that it would normally perform itself. These third parties or subcontractors would also, in the case of services to the public, provide these services in both official languages, in every province of the country. The issue was discussed and clearly understood. The amendment was passed by a majority of committee members.

A little later, on May 20, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt issued a press release which stated, and I quote:

On May 12 the Liberal dominated House of Commons heritage committee voted in favour of including specific reference to the Official Languages Act in the new bill establishing the Parks Canada Agency.

The member for Saskatoon-Humboldt goes on in this vein, leading people to believe that the said amendment would have the exact opposite effect of what was sought, that is to demand that any subcontractor performing any type of work, including painting a fence—which is the example used by the member—do so in both official languages.

That was absolutely not the committee's intention, and it does not in any way reflect the outcome of the debate. I cannot see how the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt could arrive at such a conclusion.

I felt disappointed that he did not praise the committee. The party that he represents has always criticized the hegemony of government. He used the term Liberal dominated House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is interesting that in this case the amendment carried and was supported by the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, the Tories and two of five Liberals. It was not a Liberal dominated vote, yet he chose to present it that way.

He chose to ignore the fact that members of the committee sat down, did some serious work and had a very thorough discussion on the concept of services to the public being offered in both official languages, whether by Parks Canada as a department or by Parks Canada as an agency. That was the debate. That was the intent. That is what the committee wanted, yet he chose to say otherwise. He chose to say that the committee was insisting that anybody who paints a fence must do it in both languages. It is very disappointing to see such misrepresentation of the intent of the committee.

I said at the start that when the amendment was tabled there was an invitation given to the government to redraft it to reflect accurately the intent and the desire of the committee that services to the public be offered in both official languages. That is what the government did. That is the amendment that was tabled in this House, which I had the honour of supporting along with one of my colleagues, and that was the amendment that was carried.

The system worked. The will of the committee eventually won the day and the government rallied, despite an opinion to the contrary. It saw the advantages of putting in the bill a direct reference that the agency and subcontractors who offer services to the public would be subject to the Official Languages Act. This very much reflects a concern expressed to this House by the official languages commissioner in his most recent report.

Over the last few years there has been a devolution in the general way of handling things. They go to third parties, special agencies and so forth. The official languages commissioner has rightfully demonstrated that there has been, without it being the objective necessarily, a fraying of the application of the Official Languages Act. There has been some sort of an erosion of its application through this devolution. A majority of members of the committee wanted to make sure that was not the case with the Parks Canada agency. That is what was intended. That is what the reformulated amendment does.

I would hope that instead of fearmongering, if not French-mongering, we would realize what the objective was. It was strictly to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast could visit their national parks and expect to be served in either official language.

I would like to congratulate the government for showing such flexibility. Various and even opposite views were expressed regarding the need for and appropriateness of such an amendment. It is because we debated these various views that we came up with a solution.

The government endorsed the notion that we had to clearly indicate that we must not shirk one of our main responsibilities as a government, which is to provide services in the language of their choice to all Canadians who visit their national parks. It is as simple as that.

We must not resort to fearmongering with this issue, as some tried to do. This is very bad for everything we stand for in this country: respect for Canada's linguistic duality and the possibility for Quebeckers to visit parks in Alberta and get served in their language and, conversely, for Albertans to go to Quebec and get served in English, if it is their language. Such was the purpose of the amendment, and I am very disappointed by the attitude of some members opposite who tried to make a big deal out of this.

I wanted to take a few minutes to assure all those who contacted me that there was no intention other than to respect a fundamental principle in our country, that of our linguistic duality and the implementation of the Official Languages Act when a Canadian visits a national park in a province other than the one in which he or she lives.

[Algonguin Secondary School In North Bay, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of Algonquin secondary school in North Bay, my alma mater.

During the Victoria Day weekend, or the Fête de Dollard weekend depending on one's point of view, an organizing committee masterfully directed by Carole Laperrière, née Martineau, managed to bring together hundreds of Algonquin graduates from across the country.

This secondary school, which was originally called the bilingual school, was one of the first schools of its kind to be established in Ontario following the adoption of Bill 168, introduced by the then Minister of Education, the hon. Bill Davis.

This school has an important role to play in preserving and promoting the French language and culture in that part of Ontario.

Long live Algonquin secondary school, its students, its staff and its alumni.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I have to say I will be speaking against the bill and I encourage my colleagues to give serious thought to my arguments.

I am not opposed to the idea of prohibiting cloning. I think everyone agrees on this point, and that is not where the problem lies with the bill introduced by the member for Drummond.

I would draw your attention to the second part of page two. I will quote from it, if I may, and then list my reasons for opposing it. The second part would necessarily prohibit the following, that is:

—alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm, zygote or embryo, if the altered structure is capable of transmission to a subsequent generation.

I would like to take a step back and perhaps put into perspective why I think we should not approve such a measure.

In 1990 the international community launched what is called the human genome project, an exercise of some 52 countries over 15 years that had as an objective to map out the human genome, our entire chromosomes, the entire sequencing, the 100,000 or so genes that are contained in human chromosomes.

Canada participated in that effort up until last year to the tune of $21 million over five years, $1 million from the National Research Council, $1 million from the Medical Research Council, and the balance from Industry Canada. That has now lapsed and Canada is no longer at that table. I think we should be back at that table and I encourage the government to consider that.

The project is going so well that it is quite possible that by the year 2002 the entire human genome will have been mapped out. Why is that significant to this? There are about 4,000 genetic diseases known. It is quite probable that we, the human species, will have the ability to isolate the genes that cause these 4,000 genetic diseases and cure them. There are two ways of doing that. One is the somatic approach which means that we can cure the individual and it does not get transmitted into the next generation, which is fine but then we would have to do it for every person who is born with that genetic disease.

There are possibilities that we could cure some of these diseases for good. To put this into the Criminal Code now would prohibit Canadians benefiting from such advances when they come.

My colleague from Hamilton—Wentworth was saying this could be in 10 years. The odds are very good that some of these diseases will be curable long before 10 years from now. I would hesitate to put in the Criminal Code something which would prevent us from curing genetic diseases and transmitting that cure from generation to generation.

I am not against the intent of prohibiting human cloning but I certainly would not want us as parliamentarians to prohibit the curing of diseases permanently. That is what we strive for.

I caution my colleagues in support of this bill.

We are entering a new era, that of genetics. We have had a number of eras, but, in three or four years, we will have the capacity to understand our genes. Naturally, there are benefits associated with this, as there are also monstrous disadvantages we cannot yet imagine.

We need not necessarily preclude the possibility of passing on a genetic correction from one generation to another. I think I also agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. What has to be done, and what the government must do, and the responsibility is its, is to draft framework legislation for the whole issue of genetics.

We must be able to set controls on this enhanced knowledge and to reap its benefits. Naturally, we must ban anything that can be very harmful. I think everyone can agree on that. Instead of passing a bill like this one, I call upon the government to act and to strike a parliamentary committee if necessary.

Yet we must admit, dear colleagues, that we are on the verge of an absolutely amazing era. As parliamentarians and as legislators of this country, we must take the bull by the horns and create a legislative framework that will indeed ban such things as the cloning of human beings, without banning the possibility of correcting genetic diseases or curing them definitively. We must not make that error.

I apologize for getting a bit more carried away than usual, but these are things I believe in. Well intentioned as the bill may be, I believe it is a mistake to put such limitations in the Criminal Code at this point in time.

I trust that serious thought will be given to this, and that instead of making this mistake, we will collectively do what must be done, which is to make a pre-emptive strike and to create a framework which will enable us to benefit from this new knowledge and to eliminate the possibility of the human race doing itself harm.

[Committees Of The House, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated Thursday, March 19, 1998, your committee has adopted unanimously with amendment Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency, which your committee wishes to change to parks Canada agency, and to amend other acts as a consequence, and has agreed to report with amendments.

[Calgary Declaration, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Ontario released the results of its public consultation exercise on the Calgary declaration.

A poll conducted as part of this consultation shows that 87% of Ontarians support the declaration. This is consistent with the results of similar polls conducted elsewhere in the country, including Quebec, even though the Bloc would have us believe just the opposite.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us more about the level of support for the Calgary declaration in Ontario?

[Employment, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

What evidence does he have to show that this government's approach to job creation and economic growth is working for Canadians?

[Empress Of Ireland, May 4th, 1998]

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

In 1914 the Empress of Ireland sank near Rimouski and with it 1,014 people died. May their souls rest in peace.

Reports now suggest that salvage operators are contemplating using explosives to recover valuable nickel ingots from the site.

What is the government intending to do to prevent the desecration of this site?