Mauril Bélanger

[Extention of Sitting Hours, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully just now to the bills that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons enumerated in his speech. I noted that he did not include Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which was introduced at first reading on October 17, 2011, and which we have heard nothing about since.

I was wondering why it was not part of his list.

[Constable Alain Daguerre, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, family and friends will bid a final farewell to Constable Alain Daguerre at his funeral tomorrow.

All of us who work on Parliament Hill—MPs, cooks, technicians, drivers, pages and constables—are like one big family. We are all here to help one another serve the people of Canada. We therefore recognize Alain's 12 years of service as a member of the House of Commons security services, and express our appreciation for his dedication and his friendliness.

The Liberal caucus took up a collection for Alain's family. We wanted to give his wife Vicky and their two children, Nadia and Sébastien, a tangible sign of our affection and gratitude, and of the profound sadness we feel because a man of his character has left us far too soon.

May your soul rest in peace, Constable Daguerre.

[Government Advertising, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the government stopped funding the community access centres. In Ottawa, there are 17 of them used more than 50,000 times per year by seniors who would not otherwise be able to access Internet-based services and by students to apply for work.

Would the government consider cancelling one of its irritating ads on tonight's Leaf-Bruins game, save $95,000 and resume funding the community access centres? It is just one ad.

[Taxation, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week the finance minister said that his tax hike on credit unions would only hit “large credit unions that now rival our banks”.

However, as the Credit Union Central of Canada points out, the largest credit unions have already grown too big to access this credit.

No, the tax hike is aimed squarely at mid-sized credit unions, the credit unions that serve middle-class Canadians in rural communities when the banks will not.

Would the minister commit to learning how credit unions actually work and then reverse this tax hike?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for many years, and over time, I have noticed a decline when it comes to member statements. They have, unfortunately, become increasingly partisan.

I agree with my colleague. Statements have become more partisan and, in some cases, pettier, because they are often dictated by the parties themselves. I would like my colleague to comment further on how it would benefit the House to discourage partisan member statements. Things have been degenerating for the past 15 years or more. I think this is a shame, and Canadians are not impressed.

[Canada Post, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt that senior managers at Canada Post would agree to wait over a year and a half to be paid what is owed to them. And yet that is exactly what they are forcing thousands of employees and former employees to do, the vast majority of whom are women.

In November 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision requiring Canada Post to respect the principle of pay equity and compensate a group of employees.

Eighteen months later, those employees, many of whom are now retired, are still waiting.

Why is the government allowing Canada Post to drag its feet and not correct this gross injustice as soon as possible?

[Privilege, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the disclosure of information contained in legislation not yet introduced in the House of Commons.

This arises from a story written by Steven Chase in The Globe and Mail and published this afternoon at 1:36 eastern daylight time. I would like to quote portions of that article. “The...government is temporarily delaying the introduction of its electoral reform legislation following a discussion in Conservative caucus Wednesday morning”. Sources say Tory MPs, in the closed-door meeting, “raised concerns” about how some sections of the bill were drafted and suggested rewrites. “Asked for comment Wednesday afternoon...the minister of state for democratic reform said the Tories found some last-minute problems with the new bill”.

One of the lines that I quoted implies that instead of any general briefing and discussion on the orientation of the awaited bill, the Conservative caucus may have been provided with actual text of the draft bill, which is yet to be introduced, and as such, should have remained secret.

This is why, whether they are private bills or government bills, when they are being drafted, they are printed secretly.

It is also worth noting that the Conservative caucus may imply that some persons other than the Conservative parliamentarians may have had access to this. We have in our caucus non-parliamentarians who participate, and I suspect it may be the same for other caucuses as well.

If the yet-to-be-seen text has already been introduced specifically, this may very well constitute a serious breach of parliamentary privilege. I would like to quote the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in 2001, where such an incident had occurred.

The Committee reiterates its position that it views the disclosure of bills prior to their tabling in the House of Commons, while on notice, with extreme seriousness. Members of the committee are committed to protecting the privileges of the House of Commons and of its Members in this regard.

Given the possibilities that are before us, I would ask that you undertake an investigation to see exactly what happened, and if indeed text of legislation that was yet to be introduced had been presented to a caucus. That would be a serious breach of privilege. If you do find that a prima facie case of privilege exists, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Taxation, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is inconsistent. It is bragging about lowering certain tariffs, but at the same time it refuses to acknowledge that the increased tariffs on hundreds of products will mean more than $300 million in additional taxes per year.

Unlike what this government would have us believe, foreign companies are not the ones who will have to pay these additional taxes. Canadian consumers will.

Why not simply cancel this tax on the middle class?

[Franco-Ontarian Newspaper, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 1912, James Whitney's Conservative Ontario government prohibited the use of French as a language of instruction by adopting Regulation 17.

Father Charlebois and many collaborators, both religious and secular, joined together to confront this threat and, through a successful grassroots fundraising campaign, founded the newspaper Le Droit in order to keep francophone schools in Ontario.

The newspaper's first issue rolled off the presses on March 27, 1913, 100 years ago tomorrow. Since then, Le Droit has fought all the fights: for homogeneous school boards, for francophone colleagues, for linguistic duality and linguistic rights, for the Montfort Hospital.

My message today is for the more than 600,000 francophones in Ontario. Stay true to our language and our culture, and demand that Le Droit stay true to us. If the future belongs to those who fight, it is also up to our daily newspaper to fight with us.

Long live those who fight. Long live Le Droit, which is celebrating its first hundred years tomorrow.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing there is that we keep things in equilibrium, in balance. There is a need for money to be spent in the application of knowledge, and that is the D of R and D. However, we have to keep things in balance. The trend in the last few years has been, although not exclusively, much more on the application, the applied nature of the D side of R and D, and less on the R side.

I think we have to be careful there. For instance, in 2009, a scientist in Canada who won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of telomerase at the end of DNA. That deals with longevity. The implication of that research down the road is absolutely astounding. If we as a country do not have the capacity to understand and make use of that, then we are going to pay the price.

I think all scientists would probably agree that there needs to be applied research and there also needs to be pure and basic research in equilibrium. That will serve our country and its population much better.