Mauril Bélanger

[Speech From The Throne, February 27th, 1996]

So I say three cheers for those who designed the coin and, especially, three cheers for those who created this country 129 years ago.

I may add that the same analogy could apply to Canada's francophone communities. Imagine the francophone community without Quebec or imagine Quebec separated from the one million francophones in the other provinces. In both instances, communities would be divided, and all francophones would come out losers, should the country break up. However, the value of francophone communities, in a united country, is beyond measure.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister most sincerely for according me this badge of honour and especially for the privilege of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am particularly grateful, because the speech from the throne prepares the way for reconciliation.

In terms that are appropriate and in a manner that is direct, honest, and unequivocal, it deals with questions vital to the renewal of our federation and questions we will have to try to answer in the coming months. They include recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec society, a constitutional veto for Canada's regions and the enshrinement of these two important concepts in the Canadian Constitution.

It also raises the thorny question of the division of powers. The genius of the British North America Act and its sections 91 and 92 lies not in the creation of two levels of government: a senior and a necessarily junior one. It lies in the creation of two orders of government that may and can co-operate while keeping separate jurisdictions.

All too often in this House and elsewhere in the country, we hear talk of two levels of government rather than two orders of government, of a national government and its responsibilities and authority and of provincial governments with their own responsibilities and authorities. One is not subordinate to the other nor subject to the other. Neither is better than the other, they are complementary.

Like many, I believe in a strong national government, as do most of the people in Ottawa-Vanier.

However, a strong central government does not mean a national government that does everything, has a finger in every pie, imposes its will on everything, in short acts like Big Brother. No. A strong central government means a national government that does a good job, a very good one even, in areas within its jurisdiction, in its public finances, in its relationships with other individuals, communities or governments.

The throne speech reflects that spirit of respectfulness and open-mindedness toward the provincial governments. I feel we are on the right path. The path we have begun along today will lead us to our intended destination: a strong country that respects all of its constituent elements, a country where there is a sense of harmony, where all ethnic groups have a place alongside the two founding peoples, and where those two peoples live in harmony with each other and with those who were the original occupants of this land, each adding to the strength of the other, understanding each other,

accepting each other, helping each other out, growing and developing together.

For this reason, I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

[Speech From The Throne, February 27th, 1996]

This new two-dollar coin, which is getting a rather rough ride in some quarters, is nevertheless an interesting reflection on the Canadian situation. Some people are trying to break it up, to divide it, to separate it, to separate one piece from the other by hitting it with a hammer or exposing it to the worst possible weather, to extreme conditions. No wonder that a few of the 70 million coins that were minted finally split in two.

But why should anyone try to separate two sections that are part of a whole? Once separated, they no longer have the recognition or the value of the whole coin. Separated from each other, their distinctness diminishes and even disappears. Only when they are together do we see that each part is distinct from the other. Only when both pieces are fitted together, each in their proper place, does this coin have its full and proper value, and the same applies to our country.

[Speech From The Throne, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak in support of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne before it gets dated.

As the representative of the electoral district of Ottawa-Vanier, which is in many ways a microcosm of this great country of ours, it is with a mixture of pride and humility not to mention trepidation and some nervousness, that I accepted the Prime Minister's invitation.

It is also with gratitude; gratitude because the speech from the throne speaks of the values that unite us. It speaks of the sustainability of our social programs. It speaks of ensuring opportunity, in particular for our young people. It speaks of fiscal responsibility guided by equity, fairness and balance. It speaks of safe and clean communities. It speaks of a rejuvenated, flexible and exemplary public service. It speaks of a proud and effective participant on the international stage. It speaks of our Canadian identity, of our cultural institutions, of our future, of the hope we all share for a better tomorrow. Most important, it speaks of and for a united Canada. On this very date last year, a scant four days after having been sworn in, I sat in the Chamber and listened to the Minister of Finance introduce the 1995 budget. These were his words: "Mr. Speaker, there are times in the progress of a people when fundamental challenges must be faced, fundamental choices made, a new course charted. For Canada, this is one of those times. Our resolve, our values, our very way of life as Canadians are being tested. The choice is clear. We can take the path too well trodden of minimal change, of least resistance, of leadership lost. Or we can set out on a new road of fundamental reform, of renewal, of hope restored. Today we have made our choice. Today we take action".

That budget charted the course of our economic recovery. The actions taken that day and since have inspired in the country a sense that we are on the right path. When was the last time the national government spoke with any credibility of a $17 billion deficit target? Yet that is the target reaffirmed in the throne speech for fiscal 1997-98.

The government has met its targets and will continue to do so for the betterment of the country. Next week the government will table its third budget, once more reflecting the priorities of Canadians. While our goal of progressively lowering the deficit and eventually eliminating it is essential in maintaining the confidence of our financial markets, lenders are not the focus, nor the reason, of the deficit reduction strategy. Rather, the focus is the need to foster a climate for wealth creation, a climate within which the private sector can prosper, grow and create employment. The creation of a variety of productive opportunities for Canadians, the creation of work, that is our primary focus.

As Félix Leclerc stated so very aptly in one of his songs, the best way to finish a man off is to pay him to do nothing. All too often loss of work leads to loss of spirit, loss of hope, dropping out of society, fear, crime. The speech from the throne represents a great challenge, a magnificent challenge to us all, a noble challenge, a challenge that requires all of the creativity and all of the resources of both our government and the private sector.

It is not an easy challenge. Nowhere has it been felt more than in the nation's capital. The federal government's decision to reduce its workforce by some 45,000 has had profound effects on the national capital region where residents make up one-third of the government's workforce.

While it has a history of dependence on the federal government for employment, the national capital region has chosen to ride the wave of change rather than drown in it. History is rife with examples of communities stagnating or disappearing because they were unable to adapt to change. I assure the House that this will not be the case in our region.

The national capital region has changed. It has a strong and vibrant private sector. Tourism, high technology industries, biotechnology industries, colleges and universities, research centres and a myriad of trade related businesses have turned our community into a dynamic region, a region focused on success, a region preparing to compete head on in the international arena.

A word of caution however. As the former member for Sudbury, the Hon. Doug Frith, said in his remarks in support of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in 1980:

The development of the various regions of Canada need not be at the expense of others. Surely as Canadians we realize that a strong western and Atlantic Canada are as important to the confederation as a strong central Canada. We must begin to understand that by strengthening the parts we strengthen the whole, and that by promoting regional cannibalism, we begin to road to self-destruction. The strength of confederation has been the ability of the federal system to share and redistribute the resources of the various regions of Canada in order to preserve an economically and socially progressive federation.

Our region will continue to absorb its fair share of reduced spending. However, our people are hurting too. Unemployment in our region is now higher than the national average. Also, there are more people dependent on social benefits in our region alone than in all of Saskatchewan, with all due respect to my colleague across the aisle.

Therefore, we too will need some tender loving care, not necessarily in the form of large cash infusions but perhaps along the lines of removing barriers and facilitating economic development projects.

Just as economic development is the focus of our deficit reduction plans, the ability to maintain meaningful and necessary social programs is its raison d'être.

By continuing to increase the nation's debt we only reduce opportunities to provide for the needy. On the other hand, by reducing the debt relative to the gross domestic product and eventually by reducing it in absolute terms, the country will be able to guarantee the long term viability of our social programs.

Think of the day when we will start paying off the debt, which is not too distant in the future. Think of the perpetual annual savings of $80 million or so every time we knock a billion dollars off the debt. As the ads state: "Imagine the freedom".

Already the benefits of our strategy are becoming visible. The ability to introduce a cash floor in the Canadian health and social transfer is but a first manifestation of healthier finances.

As the fiscal health is restored so will the ability to ensure the financial, physical and mental well-being of elderly people, physically challenged people and of those who cannot fend for themselves. In other words, the improving economic and fiscal situation will also improve the ability to redistribute wealth, one of the primary functions of any national government.

Changing topics, I would like to talk a little bit about the riding of Ottawa, particularly its northern boundary, the Ottawa River. Crossing that river, as some 40,000 people from Eastern Ontario or West Quebec do every day to get to work, one discovers the other component of the National Capital Region. Together we, that is

those on both sides, Eastern Ontario and West Quebec, comprise a single economic area, so much so that the Globe and Mail committed an interesting slip in a page one headline after last year's byelections, which you will remember were in Brome-Missisquoi, Saint-Henri-Westmount and Ottawa-Vanier. To quote the Globe and Mail : ``Liberals win three Quebec byelections.'' You cannot win them all.

In this National Capital Region of ours, we are so alike in the way we talk, the way we think and the way we live that an outside observer like the Globe and Mail would have trouble determining our province of origin. Our region straddles both provinces. Anglophones and francophones, both on the Ontario and the Quebec side, live in harmony with each other.

This region is a good example and a wonderful symbol of our ability to live together. However, we are not the only symbol of this duality. A brand new symbol has now been added to the constellation of Canadian symbols: the two-dollar coin. What a marvellous symbol of a country where two official languages coexist, a country where two main cultural groups live together, a nation with two founding peoples. What a wonderful idea to design a bimetallic coin to reflect our bilingualism and our biculturalism.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. It has now been more than a month since the RCMP arrested an intruder inside the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive, which happens to be in the riding I have the honour of representing.

The solicitor general said at the time that he would try to make public as much as possible of the RCMP's reports. Can the minister tell the House the status of this report and what details, if any, will be made public on this serious matter?

[Highway 416, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the funding arrangements for completing highway 416 were made public at a press conference in North Gower.

The remaining 60-kilometre link to highway 401 is due to be completed before the end of the century. This important link will contribute greatly to our regional economy, as well as make for a safer and more pleasant drive than on the existing road, as my colleague here will attest.

I am very happy to see that the federal and Ontario provincial governments have come to an agreement on this project and that the political wrangling that had surrounded it is now a thing of the past.

The construction of this final section of the highway will create approximately 2,200 jobs and will contribute to our economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth are some of the goals the government set for itself during the last election campaign. This proves that in co-operation with other governments we are living up to our promises.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my speech this evening is entitled An open letter to my Quebec kissing cousins . They know who they are.

First, I want to thank these cousins for the discussions we had during the referendum campaign. One of them was in charge of the yes side in her community, in the lower St. Lawrence region. We had a brief conversation, two days before the referendum, in a very serene and pleasant atmosphere.

The other two cousins had me over for dinner, in a Montreal suburb, on a stormy fall evening. Inside, there was also a storm raging. It was a storm of ideas, concepts, rebuttals and assertions. In short, it was a very nice evening, and I thank them.

That evening, we discussed the Constitutional Act of 1982, the Meech Lake accord, as well as issues such as overlap, duplication, immigration, and French in North America, Canada and Quebec. Of course, we also talked about the distinct society.

Today, I find myself participating in a debate revived last Wednesday by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That day, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the opposition leader. If I do not call him by name, dear cousins, it is not out of disrespect, but because the rules and the tradition of this House prevent me from doing so.

As I said, I listened carefully to what he had to say. Several of his statements are so skilfully crafted that you have to stop and think for a minute or two to find out what he means, especially when he is talking about the Constitutional Act of 1982. Here are some quotes from the speech he made. "One of the things the 1982 Constitution effectively introduced into Canada and Quebec's legal and political landscape was the notion of a single country, a Canadian nation-this was a first."

Later on, he added: "This was the first time constitutional and legal texts talked about Canada as a single nation, the nation of Canada. The corollary, needless to say, was that Quebecers found their existence as a people being denied, implicitly, if not explicitly."

Finally, he said, and I am still quoting: "-but it never occurred to me that, someday, a democratic Canada, English Canada, a nation that is open, tolerant and respectful of individual rights, could actually rely on its weight to crush Quebec's wish, tear up the Constitution agreed upon by our forefathers in 1867 and replace it with another constitution that was not recognized by Quebec but imposed on Quebec, a constitution repudiated-" I could go on and on.

I could spend hours proving that the Constitution was not replaced or torn up, that not all Quebecers repudiated this Constitutional Act, as the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe. But by doing this, I would be entering into an argument with some politicians. For now, I would rather talk to my cousins.

In the face of such a condemnation of what happened in 1982, I thought it was time for me to reread the Constitution Act, 1982, which I did. I looked everywhere to find some hint of the crushing he talked about-which is something some people would like to make a part of the historical bagage of Quebecers-but I could not find it.

I looked everywhere to find where the existence of Quebecers as a people was denied implicitly or explicitly, with the same result. It was nowhere to be found.

I looked everywhere to find the quote that says that English Canada-and I will come back to this irritating expression a little later on-relied on its weight to crush Quebec's wish. Again, I could not find it.

So we have every reason to wonder, Mr. Speaker and dear cousins, if the intent of these remarks was not to perpetuate and to reinforce a myth that has been created and spread by separatist forces.

Dear cousins, I have a question for you. What bothers you in the Constitution Act, 1982? Is it the entrenchment in the Constitution of your fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other communications media? I do not think so.

Is it freedom of peaceful assembly? I do not think so either. Freedom of association? I doubt it. Is it the entrenchment of your democratic rights, your mobility rights or your legal rights? I do not think so. To this day, I have not met one Canadian, or one Quebecer for that matter, who is against these rights.

Is it then the entrenchment in the Constitution of French and English as the official languages of our country? Does it bother you so much? Or is it the inclusion in the Constitution of the concepts of equalization and regional disparity, two typically Canadian concepts that continue to serve Quebec well?

I still fail to see what is the cause of this national humiliation the advocates of independence have talked so much about. Referring to the points that I just mentioned, how has Quebec's wish been crushed?

Dear cousins, on the autumn evening when we met, I really appreciated our ability to talk frankly, directly and with mutual respect. So I ask you to think carefully and as objectively as possible about the following question: what bothers you personally about the Constitution Act, 1982?

There is something else I would like to say, and I referred to this earlier. The term English Canada, which Bloc members and their leader keep using these days in a poorly disguised attempt to keep erecting walls between Canadians, crops up at least a dozen times in the speech made last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition.

Well, I want to ask you people in the Bloc who are constantly complaining, loud and clear, about the general lack of understanding for Quebec society, to please stop ignoring a million French Canadians who do not live in Quebec. We would appreciate some respect.

In fact, the term is not accurate since New Brunswick is officially bilingual, probably another humiliating result of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Bloc likes to speak in separatist terms, and it is pretty obvious why. I hope you, my cousins, are not fooled. You know, in northern and eastern Ontario, there are a lot of French Canadians, including your own cousins. Some day, we should discuss how certain expressions evolved and why, hardly a generation ago, we were all French Canadians, and today, we are Franco-Ontarians, Québécois, Acadians, Fransasquois and so forth.

Maybe we should invent new hyphens, new links, with all due respect for the late John Diefenbaker. I agree, we are all Canadians. But as such, we all have one or more links elsewhere. Some are new Canadians, others are English or French Canadians. In this great country with a strong tradition of tolerance and openness, there is room for everyone, even communities that form a distinct society.

When you think about it, the hyphen is a symbol that seems tailor-made for Canada. Are we not one of the hyphens or links between France and the United Kingdom, between Europe and the United States of America? We see those links throughout our history, between Lower Canada and Upper Canada and even in the Act of Union.

The beauty of the hyphen is that it manages to link two entities that are sometimes entirely distinct. Is this not the very essence of Canada? Squaring the circle, duality in unity? My dear cousins, you will agree this would be an interesting subject for our next meeting. Meanwhile, let this House recognize the distinct identity of Quebec society by voting for the motion presented by the Prime Minister, a motion which, at the very least, is a step in the right direction. That being said, my dear cousins, I remain, yours sincerely.

[High Technology, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

It is a well-known fact that technology is an increasingly important element of the world and the Canadian economy. Could the Secretary of State tell the House what measures the government has taken and will take to support and reinforce the high technology sector of the Canadian economy?

[Canadian Sports Hall Of Fame, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last November 9, six Canadians were inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame: Bob Gainey, who played with the Montreal Canadiens for 16 years and was a key part of five Stanley Cup winning teams; Paul Henderson, who scored the winning goal for the Canadian hockey team in the series of the century against the Soviet Union in 1972; Kerrin-Lee Gartner, who won a gold medal at the 1992 Albertville Olympics in downhill skiing; Mark Tewksbury, who won a gold medal in the 100 metre backstroke event at the Barcelona Olympics in 1992; Paul Dojack, a Canadian Football League official for 24 years, involved in 550 games, including 14 Grey Cups; and Debbie Muir, head coach for our national synchronized swimming team from 1981 to 1991, who shared in the success of Carolyn Waldo, Sylvie Frechette and many others.

Congratulations to the six new members of the Sports Hall of Fame and best of luck to all up and coming athletes, coaches and officials.

[Science And Technology, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we were all very proud to see Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield return safely to earth yesterday from a successful eight-day mission aboard the space shuttle Atlantis .

This government has made it clear that it is very important to establish spending priorities that meet the needs of Canadians. Would the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development please tell this House what exactly are the benefits Canadians receive from space flights like the one Chris Hadfield returned from yesterday?

[The Late Hans Daigeler, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ottawa-Carleton suffered a terrible loss with the death of Mr. Hans Daigeler who died at the age of 50.

I had the opportunity of meeting Hans on several occasions and found him to be a caring, compassionate man. During his seven years as MPP for Nepean he brought integrity and dedication to his role. Hans was well known in Queen's Park and within the Liberal caucus. He brought a refreshing honesty to politics, was never afraid to speak the truth and was an unabashed supporter of the city of Nepean and its people.

On behalf of my colleague, the federal member for Nepean, who is stricken with grief this morning, and on behalf of the national capital region, may I offer my condolences to Hans' family, friends, relatives and neighbours. He will be missed.