Mauril Bélanger

[Cable Tv, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, following a CRTC decision, it seems that two French television stations in the national capital, CHOT and CFGS, will be moved

from their present location, channels 5 and 10, to less advantageous positions on the cable grid.

Two English channels, one from Pembroke and the other from Hamilton, will take their place, to the great displeasure of some 10,000 francophones of the region.

Moreover, two American networks, NBC and CBS, channels 9 and 13 respectively, will not be affected at all by this change and will stay in the channel 2 to 13 range. In my opinion, this is intolerable. Consequently, the CRTC rules should be changed to give priority to Canadian francophone and anglophone stations.

In conclusion, I invite Rogers, the cable company, known to be sensitive to the French presence in the region, to do everything in its power to prevent this from happening.

[Oc Transpo, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

Despite efforts by the department or department officials in recent days, a strike has been unavoidable. The public transit strike in Ottawa-Carleton has been raging for two days now.

I would like to know what avenues are open to the government and which of these avenues the government intends to follow to promote a settlement of this dispute and a resumption of services to the community.

[Internet, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today of the existence of an Internet site containing hate messages directed at Lucien Bouchard. We strongly condemn this initiative, done anonymously, under the cover provided by Internet, as well as its content.

In our society, there are ways to express our disagreement with the political ideologies of a given party. These individuals will definitely not help their cause by sending messages promoting hate and violence.

I ask all my colleagues as well as opposition members to do their share and to avoid using excessive language during some of our debates. Our actions and our words are sometimes at the root of certain tendencies among the public.

Together let us give the example, but the proper one.

[Land Mines, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the international conference on land mines held in Ottawa last week raised hopes that, one day, we will succeed in eliminating these terrible devices in developing countries, thus preventing a great many serious and often fatal injuries.

Could the Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, whom I congratulate by the way, tell this House what steps the government plans to take in order to achieve this goal?

[Government Services, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament, their staffs, individuals and associations across the land make extensive use of the government telephone directory which was last updated in 1994.

Would the parliamentary secretary for public works and government services confirm whether the government intends to publish an updated version and, if so, when?

[Petitions, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 43 citizens in the national capital region I would like to present a petition.

The petitioners pray that members of Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Francophone Communities, October 1st, 1996]

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

Since French-speaking communities from coast to coast are an essential element of Canada's social fabric, can the minister tell us what the Canadian government does and intends to do to support French speaking minorities in the education sector?

[International Translation Day, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today, September 30, is International Translation Day. I would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to all the translators, interpreters and terminologists who help us understand each other better every day.

These industrious people, who nearly always work behind the scenes, are part of our day to day lives. For example, all the official activities of the Government of Canada are translated, and this is a huge undertaking.

Here on Parliament Hill, we enjoy the uninterrupted services of translators, interpreters and terminologists. Hansard , which we receive every morning, is translated and revised overnight by translators from the government's translation bureau. Debates in the House are interpreted by teams of interpreters who relieve each other at regular intervals, maybe because the debate is so heated at times.

This morning, in conjunction with World Translation Day, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, which is responsible for the Translation Bureau, officially launched a project for distributing TERMIUM throughout the Public Service. TERMIUM , the Translation Bureau's terminology bank, is now

accessible on CD-ROM. It contains over 3 million entries and is an indispensable tool for effective communication in Canada's two official languages.

To all the translators and interpreters-

[Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230, introduced today by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, would provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada.

It is the second time within only a few months that the Reform Party has proposed a debate on a variation on the same theme. It is clear that by introducing this bill, the third party favours confrontation over national reconciliation.

Whereas the government is working to improve the federation so that it better responds to the real concerns of Canadians, the Reform Party seems to be interested only in the hypothetical scenario of secession. That being said, the practical constructive approach the federal government is focusing on to renew the federation does not prevent the government from understanding and sharing some of the concerns expressed today by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap.

I probably do not need to remind the member that the federal government has made a commitment to clarifying the legal questions relating to the possibility of Quebec secession.

I nevertheless wish to recall why our government intervened in the Bertrand case. We did so to defend the rule of law, to express our profound disagreement with the position of the Attorney General of Quebec, who maintained that Canadian courts had no role to play in issues concerning separation and that these issues had no connection with Canadian laws or our Constitution.

In the light of the position taken by the Government of Quebec and the ruling by Judge Pidgeon in the case of lawyer Guy Bertrand, our government announced that it asked the Supreme Court of Canada to give an advisory opinion on the fundamental issues relating to separation which arose from the Pidgeon ruling.

It is reassuring for all Canadians to note that the Superior Court dismissed the main arguments of the Government of Quebec, which maintained that accession to sovereignty had nothing to do with the Canadian Constitution. The judgment pointed out, first of all, that the case is an important one, and that it cannot be rejected without a hearing; second, that the legal aspects of secession are complex and important and therefore deserve to be heard on the merits of the case; and third, that the courts play a fundamental role in protecting the rule of law.

Let it be clear that the government's decision to ask for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in no way challenges the right of Quebecers to decide on their own future through a consultative referendum. What we want is to establish a framework based on legal certainties that will permit us to reply to certain fundamental questions to do with a possible secession.

Contrary to what the government of Quebec is advocating, this is a responsible action on the part of our government, which must ensure social, economic and legal stability for Canadians. As long as there is a question of another referendum in Quebec, our government will assume its responsibility of ensuring that all the cards are on the table.

We are thus on the one hand fully assuming our responsibility and on the other hand and as a priority pursuing our plans to renew the federation step by step which is what Canadians want. On the contrary, rather than making a constructive contribution to the debate and helping Canadians to come closer together, the Reform Party has a tendency to exploit the differences that divide for partisan ends.

The issues of concern to Canadians are economic prosperity, jobs, social programs and the unity of our country. They are also the priorities our government has set for itself.

Canadians want their government to work together to bring about the changes that will make the federation work more effectively and more efficiently. They want gradual changes that will yield direct, positive results. The government is forging ahead with the measures to make the Canadian federation work better which were announced in the speech from the throne in February and the last budget and discussed at the first ministers meeting in June. In that regard, allow me to summarize for the benefit of my hon. colleague the initiatives for change that have been announced or implemented.

The federal government is pursuing its efforts with the provinces and territories for a review of the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government. It has therefore undertaken to withdraw from areas of activity that are more properly the responsibility of the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, such as job training, certain sectors of transportation, mining, forestry, recreation and public housing.

In this regard, the proposal made last May by our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, is a concrete example of delivering on a promise that was important for our government and for most of the provinces, which have, for some time now, been asking for more responsibility in this area.

It is a practical example that will make it possible to tailor programs to the particular needs of the regions, thus marking an important step towards a more flexible federalism.

With respect to social programs, the government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians can continue to rely on a secure, lasting social safety net. We are working with the provinces to ensure that Canada's social programs continue to express the national objectives, values and principles cherished by our fellow citizens.

Again, with a view to co-operation and dialogue, a federal-provincial-territorial committee on social policy and national standards was proposed at the first ministers meeting in June and was endorsed by the provinces in August in Jasper, Alberta. Alberta recently appointed the co-chair of that committee. Our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, together with the Minister of Health will thus be able to pursue the discussions on this matter which is of key importance to all citizens.

As far as the economy is concerned, the government will continue to work with the provinces to reduce the barriers to internal trade and manpower mobility.

It is also in the interest of better serving the public interest that the federal government is proposing the creation, in co-operation with the interested provinces, of new mechanisms to reduce overlap in the sectors of securities, revenue collection and food inspection.

In the environmental field the federal and provincial governments have agreed on a renewed partnership to develop effective management objectives and principles. In the field of tourism the provinces and territories have welcomed the private sector's co-operation in connection with the activities of the Canadian tourism commission.

These are a host of tangible examples of the progress that can be achieved through co-operation between the different orders of government. Discussions are evolving to renew the immensely successful national infrastructure program. The federal government is working with the provinces and territories to develop a proposal that is acceptable to all. This matter will be discussed at the upcoming finance ministers meeting next month.

Furthermore, our government is committed to restricting its spending power in areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It will no longer use its spending power to create new, shared-cost programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Provinces that opt out and establish a comparable program will receive compensation. It is the first time the federal government has offered to limit its powers outside the context of formal constitutional talks. This commitment marks a turning point in the history of federalism.

This is how our government is renewing the Canadian federation, by proposing constructive solutions to the issues which concern Canadians in an atmosphere of co-operation, dialogue and

respect. We believe that the spirit of co-operation and openness will enable us to further Canadian unity.

Therefore, for all the reasons I enumerated previously, I cannot support the bill introduced today in the House by the hon. member.

Again, I do not dismiss the concerns about the possibility of another referendum in Quebec. Our government is well aware of them and is acting responsibly, as was pointed out in the throne speech.

However, I believe that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way to bring about the changes Canadians want and to guarantee the unity of our country.

We will continue to demonstrate that as we gradually improve the way our federation works, we will be in a better position to respond to the needs and aspirations of all citizens.

If the Reform Party wants to do everything it can for national unity, we urge it to drop the confrontational rhetoric and work on national reconciliation and the renewal of our federation, in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-216, the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, as presented by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton.

Some members may recall that I voted in favour of this bill at second reading to send it to committee for scrutiny and debate, which is exactly what happened at committee where we started finding out that perhaps there were problems with the bill that had not been self-evident at first reading or second reading. I would like to briefly review some of the effects of the bill.

The purpose of this bill is basically to amend the Broadcasting Act and Canadian broadcasting policy, and more specifically section 3 of the Act. I would like to refer to some of the items in section 3. For instance, in paragraph (b) it says:

The Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages-provides-a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.

A little further, in paragraph (c), we read:

English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.

We also read in paragraph (d), part ( iii ), and I quote:

Through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society.

I quote these excerpts from section 3 of the Broadcasting Act because I want to make a connection with another issue, and it is that successive Canadian governments have resisted repeated attempts by our neighbours to the south, during free trade negotiations for the Canada-U.S. agreement and NAFTA, which now includes Mexico, to include all cultural matters in these agreements.

We realize and accept the fact that in Canada, certain elements of our culture, because of their very nature, require special protection. Successive governments have resisted attempts by our neighbours to the south to include culture and did so for very obvious reasons, which we find in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

This bill will significantly amend section 3, without allowing for certain nuances and reflecting the fact that differences exist in our country. What we have here is a steamroller approach.

Instead of keeping the flexibility that section 3 of the Broadcasting Act offered to the government and to the CRTC, we are approaching it with perhaps more of a steamroller approach, a one size cookie cutter fits all approach, where we do not accept that

there might be these nuances and differences that are worthy of protection and development.

That is why successive governments resisted including cultural matters in the Canada-U.S. agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. With this act we are essentially gutting that section or the ability of the CRTC to use it and have our broadcasting facilities and infrastructure in the country evolve.

Good legislation should not have bad side effects. This is exactly the case we have today. We have a very well intentioned piece of legislation which I supported at second reading because I was one of those consumers. I was riled at my cable distributor for daring to do what it was doing at the time.

We have a good intentioned piece of legislation which has some pretty serious side effects. That is what we as legislators have to be aware of.

When the Speaker rises every morning to start the debate he calls upon la Providence, the Lord, to allows to make wise decisions and good laws. I would urge my colleagues from all parties, front and backbencher, to think seriously about approving a bill that has some unnecessary, unwanted and pretty serious side effects.

For example, I often wonder: If the CBC ever decided to insist the Réseau de l'information, RDI, be mandatory, could the CRTC make it so if this bill became law? The answer to that is far from clear, although most of the time the answer given is no, it could not. There would be a lot of problems, and it would not be possible.

I find it somewhat regrettable that my fellow citizens in P.E.I., for instance, cannot get RDI at this time, although it is funded by all Canadian taxpayers, themselves included, because RDI has not yet asked the CRTC to do this. But if RDI did ask, the CRTC would no longer be able to comply. I find this regrettable, and it is one of the serious consequences I referred to earlier.

My colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, like all those who were involved in the consumer protests in early 1995, is trying to put an end to the marketing ploy of negative optioning. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a worthwhile objective, as I have said before. I again congratulate him on his efforts in this connection. Yet, in order to be successful in those efforts, my colleague has chosen to take away from the CRTC its power to force cable companies to carry certain stations, in order to comply with the provisions in Canada's broadcasting policy, an unforseen serious secondary effect.

Bill C-216 is a bill of national interest, and one that warrants the most serious examination. Let us take all of the time required to address the questions on which the bill focusses. I will be voting against Bill C-216, not because I support the practice of negative billing, which my colleague would like to see eliminated, but rather because I have the feeling that this bill has the potential to deprive the CRTC of its ability to contribute to the growth of this country's French language minority communities.

Canada is a country peopled by two linguistic communities. We have created institutions with the mandate to reflect this reality and we must therefore ensure that, despite any technical and legislative changes we decide to make to these institutions, this reality is preserved.

If the House decides to reject this bill, I hope that the government will still act swiftly to table a bill that would ban negative billing. There is no doubt in my mind, in light of all the discussions I have had with my colleagues in committee, that the House is almost unanimously in favour of banning negative billing. There is no doubt on this side. But if we go ahead, for goodness' sake let us avoid anything that could be harmful to society. It is with this in mind that I urge all my colleagues, especially backbenchers, to think carefully about the issue, and when they vote, in the next little while or later on, to say no to the negative impacts of Bill C-216.