Mauril Bélanger

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the days leading up to this take note debate, I had the occasion to discuss the possible participation of Canada in a military operation against Saddam Hussein with some of my constituents. I will share the fruit of those discussions with my colleagues.

I can say categorically that there is unanimity and a preference, as there seems to be in the House from the debate I have listened to tonight, for the use of diplomatic channels to solve this problem. We want to arrive at a solution by peaceful means. There is a keen desire to see an intensification of our efforts: bilateral, multilateral, at the United Nations, at the security council or wherever. We as a country, through our representatives the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs who have a considerable positive reputation world-wide, should use whatever influence we can to promote diplomacy to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of this matter.

Some suggestions came forward in my discussions. Perhaps one of the more imaginative recommendations I heard was that the prime minister should offer the services of our foreign affairs minister as an honest broker with Baghdad to a country that might be more aligned with Iraq. This would be based on the considerable reputations that both the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have achieved especially in recent months with the signing of the anti-mine treaty. I agreed to pass on this suggestion to the appropriate authorities.

I have heard this second suggestion from a few people, that Canada should encourage a lifting or a reduction in the sanctions currently imposed on Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated tonight that is one possibility that has been considered at the United Nations.

The suggestion we have heard most often this evening is that we should consider the make-up of the inspection teams. We could explore whether there is an opportunity to solve this lack of respect for the United Nations resolutions and agreements to which Iraq is a signatory by modifying the make-up of the inspection teams to be more amenable to Iraq.

These suggestions have already been mentioned tonight but I wanted to repeat them because these suggestions have come from my constituents.

The second conclusion that has emerged from my discussions is that there is certainly a preference that any Canadian participation be made under the authority of the United Nations, that we as a country should only participate in a military manner in a military strike against Saddam Hussein if the United Nations were to ask. I must admit at first blush that one might be inclined to agree with that motion as I was and as I may still be. But if one looks at the prevailing situation it becomes less obvious.

For instance, since 1991, and as late as November of 1997, the UN security council adopted resolutions signifying essentially that the non-compliance of Iraq was not acceptable and was tantamount to a threat. For weeks now U.S. secretary of state Albright has made numerous foreign visits to shore up support for a military intervention led by the United States. As a matter of fact, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party quoted the secretary of state quite clearly as saying that time is running out.

There has been a barrage of media coverage on this in the last weeks. It would be very difficult not to know of the intentions of the United States.

We have heard tonight many colleagues suggesting that we not participate unless it is at the express request of the United Nations. I would argue that might be a tad facile. The people who are either on the security council or who gravitate around the security council are intelligent. They are serious. They are knowledgeable about world affairs and current affairs. It would be very difficult to believe that if the people who make up the security council did not intend to let the United States proceed that they would not explicitly say so.

They have not said no. They have not told the United States to stop the sabre-rattling or to stop preparing for a military intervention. They have remained essentially silent. One could be justified in thinking that there is, at the very least, tacit support from the United Nations security council.

There is a saying in French which might be useful to reflect on: “qui ne dit mot consent”. “He who says nothing can sense”. That is the situation we are confronted with.

The United Nations is remaining silent on the fact that the Americans are preparing for a strike quite explicitly and quite openly, with repeated attempts by the secretary of state to shore up support. By not denouncing that, by not saying “We are not prepared to have the Americans lead a strike”, they are essentially supporting it. That might be a convoluted way of looking at things, but I believe it has some merit.

One thing which has emerged from the discussions is that if and when the time does come for action, even military action, with respect to the question of whether Canada should participate, reluctantly and unfortunately, more often than not, the answer was yes. It is not unanimous. There are people who believe that we should not participate. However, on the whole, the comments are “Unfortunately, yes”.

If such a time should come upon us, then we as a nation must live up to our own obligations, our international obligations, and perhaps even to our moral obligations.

Canada is not a neutral country. Time and again we have stood with our allies. In times of peace we stand with them in strategic alliances, in peacekeeping missions and so forth. In times of war we have stood beside them in the defence of our shared fundamental values. I believe that these values include the ability to live one's life in relative security, certainly secure from the deadly threat of biological or chemical weapons in the hands of a man such as Saddam Hussein.

I began my remarks by saying that there is unanimity in exploring every diplomatic means available to us. From the discussion I have listened to tonight, there seems also to be unanimity in the objective of removing from Saddam Hussein the ability to use these biological and chemical weapons. While we may have differing views as to how that should be achieved, we nonetheless agree in this House on that particular objective.

What we have here are escalating alternatives from moral suasion to sanctions to diplomacy. What alternative then is left if these do not bring the results we wish?

There is the threat of force and finally, the use of force. We are not there yet, but I believe I speak for the majority of my constituents when I say that if and when the time comes that the threat and use of force is required, Canada should stand firm with its allies and with the United Nations.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to give my colleague a lesson in geography. I am flattered that he thinks I am from Quebec. I must admit that although I was conceived in Quebec, I was born in Ontario, I live in Ontario and I represent a riding called Ottawa—Vanier.

In fact, I was born in a village called Mattawa. It is where the Speaker was born as well. It is in Ontario, and my riding of Ottawa—Vanier is definitely in Ontario.

A brief anecdote springs to mind. The day after my election in the February 1995 byelection, the Globe and Mail reported that the Liberals had won three byelections in Quebec.

So the hon. member is not the first one to make the mistake. I find it flattering to some extent, but I am very proud of my Ontario roots.

As regards accumulated deficits, I did indeed say that over the past 25 to 27 years successive governments have accumulated deficits such that in 1984, when the government changed, the accumulated debt, that is the accumulation of annual deficits, amounted to some $180 billion. The responsibility for that rests indeed with the governments of those years, that is, from the early 1970s to 1984.

Between 1984 and 1993, the debt climbed from approximately $180 billion to $480 billion, and we inherited an annual deficit of $42 billion. So, yes, preceding governments, including the one in power from 1984 to 1993, which more than doubled the debt in nine years, have to bear a share of the blame. So, as far as that goes, we are in agreement.

The errors of the past must be put right, and that is what this government has done. In four years, we have reduced the deficit from $42 billion to zero perhaps this year, but certainly next year. We are in a surplus situation. That answers the first question.

As for the second, the one about the $2 billion for the GST, I will answer that question with another. Will the member admit that the finance minister in the last Quebec government admitted officially that there is no claim for $2 billion? Quebec's former finance minister, a Liberal, clearly said that there was no question of the Government of Canada owing the Government of Quebec $2 billion for the GST. So, I am prepared to accept the responsibilities of past governments, and I hope my colleague will do likewise.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, our only reaction to today's opposition motion is a painful feeling of déjà vu, if not of reheated leftovers.

If memory serves me right, the same hon. member for Medicine Hat proposed something similar last fall. This must not be seen as admirable consistency in the opposition's concern for Canadians, but rather as an example of how the Reform Party refuses to admit that the people of Canada knew very well what they were doing when they brought our party back to power in last June's general election.

Although last year's Reform program, Fork in the Road , met with general public indifference throughout the country, these same people continue to take up the time of this House by calling for measures which Canadians have essentially rejected.

The truth is that Canadians are far smarter than the Official Opposition would care to admit. They know that the Reform Party is just trying to recycle a platform which repudiates a good number of the fundamental values and traditions on which this country was built. They know also that the results our government has obtained on the financial level leave them no other choice but to try to spread false ideas about how we govern and engage in scaremongering about the direction we want to take.

I am, however, convinced that Canadians are not as easily fooled as the opposition thinks they are. The June election results are proof of this, and our track record on deficit reduction and job creation demonstrates that Canadians made the right choice, in my opinion. They know we acted with determination over the past four years in order to put our finances in order.

They know that by doing so we have been true to the sense of balance underlying the Conservative ideology of the members of the opposition. They recognize that our plan for the upcoming budget surpluses, a balanced plan that will lead to a reduction in taxes and in the public debt and to investment in health and education, is the best choice for Canada's economic and social future.

As the motion before us today indicates, the Reform Party is trying to make believe that our government has already forgotten past lessons. This is not so. We were the first to note the economic effects of 27 years of deficit financing, the real measure of excess spending, and we do not want to expose the country to this scourge again.

That does not preclude, however, establishing priorities for our society and investing strategically and wisely for the future. We have certainly had to move carefully to achieve our financial objectives. We know that it has meant sacrifices for many. We are beginning to see the fruits of our investments and our efforts, efforts that should benefit all Canadians.

That is why this year we are allocating half of our budget surplus to improving social programs in Canada and the other half to reducing taxes and gradually repaying the public debt. That is what sets us apart from the right wing members across the way.

We on this side of the House believe in the role of government. We believe that it can help make our society a better and more equitable one. The best example of this is the tax policy pursued by our government as compared to the tax policy one might expect under a Reform administration.

Let us be quite clear. Taxes may be high in Canada, but that is the price Canadians have to pay for 25 years of accumulated federal deficit. That is why our government will be reducing taxes. The Minister of Finance let no room for doubt in this regard. We will see when the budget is tabled.

We however could not implement major tax cuts without immediately incurring another deficit with devastating effects or being forced to slash seniors, health, education and other important social programs. None of these options is acceptable to us, as they would nullify the social and economic progress we have worked so hard to achieve over the past four years.

Again, we are determined to ensure that tax reductions first benefit those Canadians who need it most, that is to say low income earners. That is why I am looking forward to the next budget. I would like to remind the House that one of the distinctive features of our previous budgets has been our commitment to ease the tax burden of the less fortunate. Our government is the one that has put a stop to rising taxes in Canada.

Think about it for a minute. Individual tax rates have not gone up in any of our last four budgets. In fact, the last two budgets did not include any tax increases. Instead, they offered selective tax cuts of immediate benefit to those whose needs are greatest.

There are $850 million in tax cuts for over one million low-income families and their children, cuts for individuals making charitable contributions, for disabled Canadians, for students, for workers pursuing higher education, and for parents saving for their children's education.

In fact, some of these tax measures in favour of charitable organizations and registered education savings plans were suggested to us quite recently when we passed Bill C-28 at second reading.

Canadians also know that, in each of the last three years, we reduced EI premium rates in order to ease the burden of payroll taxes. We also lowered maximum insurable earnings.

We took all these measures in order to provide the public with real social benefits, while meeting our financial responsibilities.

This is not what Reformers would have done, at least I do not think so. Given the motion before us, they would prefer immediate and major tax decreases, for the benefit of the wealthy. It seems to me that tax fairness is a foreign concept to Reformers.

If the $100,000 capital gains exemption had been eliminated under a Reform government, one wonders whether the deduction granted to corporations for meal and entertainment expenses would have been reduced to 50%. Would the tax rate of major corporations have been raised by 12.5%? Would Reformers have imposed a 12% surtax on the capital assets of banks and major deposit institutions? Did Canadians see our government take all of these measures? My constituents and those represented by all the members of this House have indeed seen our government take such measures.

When we amended the tax system, one of our priorities was to make it fairer, in order to spread the fiscal burden more equitably, and to ensure that every citizen and every business in Canada does their fair share to help reduce the deficit.

Fairness also guided us in implementing selective tax cuts. Indeed, it is only fair that the needy would be the first to benefit from government assistance.

Allow me to say it again for the benefit of the Reformers in this House: we do believe in fiscal responsibility. As members of the opposition, it is very easy for Reformers to advocate tax decreases across the board. However, we have done too much in the fight against the deficit and the debt to jeopardize the progress that has been achieved so far.

The fight to put our fiscal house back in order is not over yet. Victory is within reach, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We cannot eliminate overnight a tax burden fuelled by 25 years of deficits, and we must recognize and accept this reality.

These are the few comments I wanted to make concerning the opposition's motion. I feel it is extremely unrealistic to cut taxes as aggressively as suggested by the Reform Party.

[Expropriation Act, December 11th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Expropriation Act (disposal of expropriated lands).

Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially is quite simple. It would have, for effect, that whenever the crown has acquired land through expropriation and it then proceeds to resell this land, this act, if enacted, would demand that the crown give to the original owner a right of first refusal to match the best offer received by the crown. This is common practice in many provinces.

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

[Human Rights, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This milestone reminds us that human rights are the foundation of women's equality in Canada and around the world.

Internationally, Canada uses venues such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States to promote women's rights.

Here at home, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal protection and benefits under the law to Canadian men and women. Women have used the charter to challenge legislation which discriminates against them.

The Government of Canada will continue to fight discrimination against women and support their efforts to find solutions to the problems confronting them.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in sharing my conclusions, I would like to address three points dealing essentially with the motion before us. The first one is the education of French speaking Newfoundlanders; the second, public support for this amendment; and finally, our role as parliamentarians, members of the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons, with regard to this issue.

On the education of French speaking Newfoundlanders, last year, when the House first considered this issue as part of an amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, I indicated that my support was largely based on the fact that, in the process, the Government of Newfoundland would be fulfilling its responsibilities under section 23 of the charter.

It will be recalled that, with passage of the Constitutional Act in 1982, section 23 of the charter guaranteed official language minorities everywhere in the country, from sea to sea to sea, the right to education in their language. That took a while to happen in Newfoundland. Here we are in 1997 finally seeing them respect that right.

Dare I speculate that the need, desire or will of the Newfoundland government to get term 17 of its union with Canada modified is in part what made it aware it might get a poorer reception in Parliament—if I can use that expression here—if it were not respecting the commitments under section 23 of the charter?

In this connection I would like to quote a portion of a letter from Johanne Lacelle to the co-chair of the joint committee. She was writing on behalf of the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. She said “Since June 1997—not long ago—francophones in the province have a shools act guaranteeing complete control over our school system. At last we can say that language rights are henceforth going to be in line with section 23 of the charter. School administration is now in the hands of the francophones. From now on, under this act, the schools will have the status of non-denominational schools, in line with the proposed reform the province is calling for”.

From this letter and the fact that the Fédération did not wish to appear, did not feel the need to appear, I think we may conclude and state that the francophones of Newfoundland have the management of their school system under control, and we hope that they may use this to promote the growth of their community in, as she so aptly put it, nondenominational schools. This is another element. I do not think that we have said sufficiently in debates in committee and here that the francophone population of Newfoundland seems to agree to having their children educated in nondenominational schools.

As to the matter of popular will, in committee several questions were raised regarding public consultation. Some fairly sharp criticism was directed at the process, the referendum question and the way it was held. The results were often interpreted to mean that the minorities had not agreed to the change. I have a question on that, which has not really been raised up to now. In my opinion, we should give it some thought. It concerns the fact that the denominational classes, if I can call them that, did not insist that the vote be taken along religious lines.

If they had wanted to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that their own denomination were opposed to the changes and if they thought they had a sufficiently large number of people within their own denomination that would vote against it, then it behooved the representatives of these denominations to ask that the vote be done by denominational class, and that was not done. We were told in committee by the minister responsible for education that that offer was put on the table, not for this current vote but for the previous one. The offer was not taken up nor was it asked for during the last vote that occurred in early September as a result of the campaign in August.

This is a situation in which those who argue that the minorities did not give their consent to this could have found a way to demonstrate that, yet they failed to even ask for that to be done. They could have been clamouring for this to be done, to have all the Pentecostal votes identified. When someone voted they could have said that they were Catholic or that they were such and such. We do that all the time in Ontario municipal elections when we cast a ballot, yet that was not put forward. It was not requested. I suspect that suggests quite a bit.

We can read into this what we wish. I have read into it that perhaps there is a consensus, even within the denominations, for a change to the system in many instances. Perhaps not in all of them, but in some of them I would suspect that the reason there of no insistence for such a vote was because the result may have been somewhat other than some people of those denominations would have wanted to see.

I wanted to put this on the floor so that members who are opposing it on the grounds that the minorities did not give their consent can reflect on it.

Finally, I want to address what our role is as parliamentarians. It is definitely not to rubber stamp. I am very pleased that the three votes in which I have been involved in my short time here which have dealt with constitutional amendments using section 43 of the 1982 act have all been free votes. It speaks very well of the seriousness with which we address these issues. We rise above partisan considerations. Free votes force members to think about the issue. It removes the cushion, if you will, of the whipped vote. We have to be accountable for our votes. I believe that is the way which we as parliamentarians should address a constitutional change.

Although our role is not to rubber stamp, it is certainly not to be systematically opposed. I have had a chance in recent weeks to sit on two committees, the one studying the bilateral constitutional amendment for the Quebec school boards and this one. I have been pleased with the approach taken by all parties and all representatives of both Houses.

This method of helping our country, of ensuring that some systems and some of our institutions evolve, is very good. Perhaps it has not been anticipated to be that useful, but it is certainly turning out to be that way. I want to encourage the parliaments of Canada to realize that there are certain ways of making systems and some of our institutions progress.

It is not our duty, as I have pointed out, to systematically oppose or blindly approve recommendations put to us. But, having sat on the committee, listened to witnesses and considered all the arguments, I think we can say without fear of error that the amendment is put to us with the approval of the people of Newfoundland and certainly the unanimous approval of the Newfoundland legislature, which is not to be sniffed at, and is one of the most important factors to be considered.

That having been said, I have absolutely no qualms about supporting and encouraging my colleagues to support the proposal before us.

[Tfo, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting of concerned citizens yesterday in Ottawa to discuss the future of TFO, the French educational network of TV Ontario, where there was strong opposition to its privatisation.

Can the heritage minister reassure us as to the type of support TFO can count on from her department?

[Tfo Television Network, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be negative, but I would like to point out that there seems to be a contradiction between what our Bloc colleagues are preaching and what their PQ counterparts in Quebec are doing.

Presently, TVO, the English language educational television network in Ontario, is broadcast to certain regions in Quebec based on a monthly wholesale pass-through rate. But in the case of TFO, the French channel of that network, Télé Québec and the Government of Quebec refuse to allow its broadcasting based on such a rate.

Instead of feeling sorry for French Canadians and throwing up their hands in despair, as they unfortunately have a tendency to do sometimes, my colleagues in the Bloc should pick up the phone, describe to their PQ counterparts how great TFO is, and remind them of their own policy on French Canadians outside Quebec.

[Canada Health Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality).

Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the Canada Health Act would add a sixth principle to it, that of respect for linguistic duality.

The bill would amend the statute so that a province would be paid the full sum under the Canada health and social transfer only if it honoured the principle of Canada's linguistic duality.

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

[Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today marks 25th years of life in Parliament for the Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier.

Elected to Parliament for the first time on October 30, 1972 as the member for Ottawa—Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier was re-elected six consecutive times, before being appointed to the Upper House in 1994.

A champion of Franco-Ontarians and of the French language, Mr. Gauthier has left his mark on a community which has nothing but respect for him.

It is to mark his contribution that, yesterday, the Fondation franco-ontarienne created the Fonds Jean-Robert Gauthier, which will award scholarships to Franco-Ontarian students who have demonstrated a commitment to excellence in French.

I take this opportunity to congratulate a man for whom I have a great deal of admiration, the Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier, Senator.