Mauril Bélanger

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visits to Nigeria, Ghana and Togo, from January 16 to 22, 2011, less than a month and a half ago.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Maxime Ricard, the association's secretary, and Michael Dewing, our analyst, for enabling us to table this report so quickly. It deals with an issue that is still current: the situation in the Ivory Coast.

[John MacLeod Fraser, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, John MacLeod Fraser was born in Montreal in 1935. When his father, the late Blair Fraser, became Ottawa editor of Maclean's in 1943, John moved to Ottawa and attended Ashbury College. He became a Rhodes Scholar before joining the external affairs department where he had a distinguished career.

In one of his first postings he opened Canada's embassy in Beijing after Prime Minister Trudeau had re-established diplomatic relationships with China 40 years ago. Then he served as ambassador to Poland, where he witnessed the rise of the solidarity movement. He became director-general of external affair's foreign intelligence bureau. After retirement, John worked as a consultant as an intelligence analyst until the end of his life.

John died on December 29, 2010. I offer my deepest condolences to his family. They have lost a loved one. Canada lost a friend and a formidable public servant, one of those who was responsible for Canada's excellent international reputation. My thanks to John.

[Bernard Grandmaître Awards, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, many good memories were made last night at the Prix Bernard Grandmaître awards gala, held by ACFO Ottawa. This annual event recognizes francophones and francophiles who have distinguished themselves with their achievements, their dedication and their commitment in our community.

I want to pay tribute to Caroline Gélineault, who won the young person of the year award—what a bright future; Alex Cullen, who was named francophile of the year; and Émile Maheu, who won educator of the year—another bright future. My good friend Ronald Bisson was named citizen of the year. Those were the Laurier awards. Congratulations also to the organization of the year, Retraite en action. The Grandmaître award was presented to Jeannine Legault, an extraordinarily dedicated volunteer, who has been putting her heart and soul into the community for over six decades. She is very deserving of this honour.

Congratulations Jeannine and all of the finalists and Laurier award recipients. Congratulations also to the organizers of this wonderful evening. See you again next year.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this issue from the perspective of being the co-chair of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association. As such I have had the opportunity over the past few years of learning about Africa, and certainly the country we are talking about tonight and its situation, Egypt, and the role it plays in northern and eastern Africa and the role it played in supporting the pan-African Parliament, in supporting NEPAD, and so forth.

This essentially is what is going on in Egypt and other countries in Africa, whether it is Tunisia, Algeria or even Côte d'Ivoire. It is essentially about democracy, about the will of the people. What is driving some of these changes we are witnessing through the media reports is in part food costs, as we have seen in Algeria and Tunisia, and also the realization by millions of people that their standard of living is not what it could be, and the intolerable inequities they have been subject to, whether between African countries and European countries or African countries and North American countries, and also within countries because, within Egypt, we have heard tonight there are certainly different standards of living that people can afford. The majority of the people in that country are unfortunately living, as we have heard, on a couple of dollars a day.

We have seen this happening now, and as I say, it has been reported by the traditional media, by television, newsprint and radio, but has also been driven in great part by social media. That in turn has been driven by the will of the people to know and be informed, to know what is going on and to have an effect and an impact on their environment so their living conditions can be improved. And then again, I boil it down to what democracy is all about.

Our Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association had the occasion to visit Egypt, Cairo in particular, in March 2007. Even then we could almost sense an end of the regime, because the president, who is still president today, was ill at the time. There was a question of whether or not he would run again. They had just had elections the preceding November, when 88 members of the Muslim brotherhood had been elected. Some thought that number could have been greater and there was a lot of questioning about the method of elections. International observers were not allowed. As we know, in the elections just last fall, those 88 were reduced to a handful, and again there were a number of question asked about the way in which the elections were conducted. We are seeing a number of factors come into play, and all of this, of course, is being driven by other events in neighbouring countries.

I also want to relate a discussion we had at the time with a Mr. Hisham Kassem, who had been a participant in the Cairo Times for seven years, and founder of the first truly independent daily in Egypt. Our delegation had an hour of discussion with him, which we could not fully relate for fear of putting him in a bit of a bind. However, it was a truly eye-opening discussion in terms of the evolution of democracy in that country, how the regime was functioning, how they were allowing him essentially to be able to report independently, and that opened our eyes greatly to the situation. In that sense I am not very surprised that some of the events we are seeing are happening.

I want to take us a few days back, though, to events that happened elsewhere that I believe had an influence.

Naturally I am talking about the events in Tunisia. In just a few days, we saw the end of Ben Ali's regime, which had lasted for 27 years. The people, who are probably a little better off than the people of Egypt, wanted change. The people took charge and succeeded in ousting Ben Ali and are now making sure there is a new regime. Let us hope this will occur respectfully and peacefully and that it results in a regime that will satisfy the majority of the people.

Let us not forget the events in Algeria. There were riots there too because of the price of food. As a result, the government had to act quickly and reduce the price. We can see the sensitivity that exists throughout northern Africa.

I would also like to mention another country: Côte d'Ivoire. Our association has just returned from visiting the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS), which includes Côte d'Ivoire, a country we did not visit. In November, elections were held in Côte d'Ivoire and Mr. Ouattara was declared the victor by all the observers: from the European Union Election Observation Mission, to the United Nations and the African Union of West Africa itself. Everyone agreed that Mr. Ouattara had indeed been elected and that Mr. Gbagbo had to leave his post. However, Mr. Gbagbo is hanging on to power. During our visit to Nigeria, Ghana and Togo, roughly 10 days ago, it was headline news even though other things were going on in Tunisia, as I was saying.

I am very proud of the fact that 13 of the 15 member countries of ECOWAS held a meeting and unanimously supported the need to respect the election results, whereby Mr. Ouattara is to be named president and will take control. They went so far as to say that, as a last resort, force would be used to ensure that the election results were respected. This is very important because there will be 17 elections in Africa this year. If democracy were to experience a serious setback in Côte d'Ivoire because Mr. Ouattara was not sworn in as president, democracy in other African countries would also suffer.

In light of all this, I believe that the situation in Africa is very interesting nonetheless. Democracy is beginning to take root there and looking to flourish. As parliamentarians, as Canadians, as members of the broader international family, we have a role to play. First, we will have to seriously consider accepting the results of free and fair elections. When free and fair elections are held, even if the results are not what we would like them to be, we must learn to accept the outcome because that is democracy. There have been other instances when we have hesitated to accept the results, or even when we have not accepted them, and that is putting us in a rather delicate situation at present.

We must also learn to support these countries by speaking out, by having an active presence, in peacekeeping or international development—and certainly in election assistance or election monitoring. Canada is an expert in this area. Elections Canada is an organization with a very good reputation, and is highly respected and highly regarded by other nations. If we are asked to help, I hope we will be ready to answer the call.

If we were to do so, if we were to take part in the shift to democracy in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Côte d'Ivoire and any other country that wants to move in that direction, if their populations clearly, fairly and freely express their desire to do so, everyone would benefit. The large international family of free and democratic countries would be better off, and so would the human race overall.

That is the message I wanted to convey this evening. Like my hon. colleagues, I hope that everyone in our respective ridings who is of Egyptian origin can rest assured that their loved ones who are still in Egypt are safe and are being well treated. It goes without saying that we must do everything we can to help them.

I thank the Speaker for giving parliamentarians the opportunity to share their thoughts and wishes here this evening.

[Foreign Affairs, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, since I am not getting a straight answer I will change the subject.

In March, the House passed a bill on Supreme Court justices. A majority of the representatives elected by the people passed a bill and sent it to the Senate. The bill has been languishing there ever since. The Conservative senators refuse even to refer the bill to committee to allow people to discuss it. As the old adage goes, things come in threes.

Two or three weeks ago, they killed Bill C-311. This week Bill S-216 got the axe.

Will Bill C-332 be the next victim of the Conservatives in the Senate?

[Foreign Affairs, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to the 2009-10 public accounts, Canada spent roughly $18 million on its embassies in Europe. For the Caribbean and Latin America, it spent about $17.5 million and for Africa, barely $1 million.

Is this imbalance a precursor to decisions to come with regard to our ability to have a diplomatic presence on the African continent?

[Guy Thériault, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Ottawa—Vanier resident Guy Thériault, who was named employee of the year by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. This award is given to an employee whose professionalism, commitment, attitude and service quality are held up as examples of excellence.

Guy Thériault has worked at Parks Canada for more than 20 years, where he has held positions ranging from lockmaster to travel trade specialist. Guy has customer service and attention to detail in his veins. More than 700,000 Canadians work directly in the tourism industry, and he was the one chosen as employee of the year.

I wish to acknowledge Guy's work in promoting our national parks and congratulate him on his success.

[Statistics Act, December 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to address this matter. I had the pleasure of seconding Bill C-568 when my colleague from St. Paul's introduced it in the House. The bill follows up on a decision that the government first announced in June, and that was we would no longer have a mandatory long form census distributed, that it would become some sort of a survey that would be on a voluntary basis. Even though the decision was announced in June, it had been taken months before.

As soon as the decision was announced, after Parliament had conveniently shut down for the summer, reactions started. We had very strong reaction from Canada's partners in this federation, the provinces and the territories, indicating, in a great majority, that they thought the decision was wrong. Municipalities across the country said that they thought the decision was a wrong one, that we should not scrap the mandatory long form census. We had the same thing from universities and colleges across the country and various departments of universities involved with the science of statistics also decrying the decision, that this was not the way to go.

People representing churches throughout the country have also said that this is not the thing to do. Businesses, starting with the Bank of Canada, said that the decision would affect its ability to deliver programs. When it starts getting like that, we have to wonder what was behind such a decision.

A number of scientists came forward. Even the chief statistician felt that it was best to tender his resignation because of some of the statements from the government, which he could not support.

We have had reactions from across the world from statisticians and from organizations wondering what is going on. This flies in the face of an international agreement on the use of statistics and census that Canada is a party to, yet the government seems intent on not changing its mind.

The industry committee had two full days of hearings this summer, of which I was privileged to be part. An overwhelming number of the witnesses said that they wished the government would rescind the decision and that it would maintain the long form census in a mandatory manner.

Now we even have comments from federal government departments. As of yesterday, in a publication in the Canadian Press, Ms. Jennifer Ditchburn, through access to information, obtained some of the comments given to the government by various departments. The article stated:

Statistics Canada scrambled to assemble research last December on “the prime minister’s decision” and consulted data users across government. A briefing note drafted for the deputy minister at Industry Canada detailed the “specific consequences” of replacing the long questionnaire with a voluntary survey. And with the number of Canadians filling out the forms potentially decreasing by as much as 40 per cent, according to the memo, a number of other federal activities would feel the loss of data.

Here are some specific concerns of the departments. The Human Resources and Skills Development Canada commented:

Less reliable data would “compromise their ability” to determine EI eligibility, assess skills development and retraining, and apply the federal-provincial agreement on labour mobility.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada commented:

Absence of reliable long-form data will not allow them to effectively manage, evaluate, and measure performance of programs in areas of aboriginal health, housing, education, and economic development.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada commented:

A broad range of programs dealing with selecting and settling immigrants, including a pan-Canadian agreement on foreign credentials would be hit. “A question in the long form on country of educational attainment specifically provides information to support this program”.

The conclusion that seems to come from the bureaucrats of our federal government service is:

It cannot be anticipated at this time if a successful resolution of these issues is even feasible to provide reasonable quality data at affordable cost.

The question remains, why did we do this if everybody and their brother were arguing that this was the wrong decision?

We initially thought it might be a matter of concern with privacy, so we asked the Privacy Commissioner. The answer was no, that there had never been a leak of any data collected through the long form census. Obviously that is not the concern.

We keep hearing that it was to ensure that Canadians did not go to jail. No Canadian has gone to jail over this in the history of the census taking. Obviously that is not the reason either.

We then started to hear the experts. The experts confirmed that if we were to have a voluntary form, as opposed to a mandatory one, the information collected would be biased and of a lesser quality, especially within small communities. The argument they put forward was that if it were a voluntary format, those earning more money, the very well to do, would seek anonymity and would not fill it out. Also, those who felt more vulnerable in our society would not fill it out for fear or whatever. We now will have a reading of our society that is appropriate, not equal and not accurate. The inequities of our society will no longer be measured appropriately.

By the way, this is not a theory. The U.S. tried scrapping the mandatory long form census, or the equivalent, under the George Bush administration. The U.S. reversed itself because it realized that the information it was gathering was not as accurate or as reliable as before.

One would think the Conservatives are doing this to save money, as that would be in line with their philosophy. However, no, the government is going to spend $30 million more.

We have to wonder why the government is doing this. It has been proven wrong, according to what the U.S. has done. Almost everybody in Canada is saying not to do this. We will be spending $30 million more to get information that is less reliable.

One conclusion that many of us are forced to arrive at, and we have heard it before, is that to facilitate a shift from evidence-based decision making, which has traditionally been the way governments in our country have reached their decisions, the government wants to ensure that it does not have as high-quality information in order to have ideologically driven decision making. That is where the rubber hits the road. We cannot allow that.

This is why we have members of Parliament in the House saying no. We have had a motion in the House where the majority of the elected representatives of the people of the country have said no to this. However, the government has said that it will stick to its guns.

We now have a bill in the House and I suspect and I hope that the government will respect the will of the House when the bill passes, as I believe it will next Wednesday when it will be read in at second reading.

We are doing this because to move from evidence-based decision making to ideologically-based decision making scrambles the ability of government to have accurate information. The impact of this on municipalities, universities, provinces and business is untold. It is a shameful decision. I hope the government accepts the fact that the country wants it to reverse itself on this.

However, if the government does not, then we will have to force it to. If we cannot do it that way, when the Liberal Party forms government, we will ensure the census reverts back to a long form mandatory method to accurately read the snapshot of Canada in order to design programs to address the inequities in our society.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 29th, 2010]

With respect to the site of the former CFB Rockcliffe: (a) how much has the Canada Lands Company spent over the past ten years, charged to what budget item, on the site’s development; and (b) of the funding granted to external firms or consultants for this development, how much has gone to each firm or consultant and what are the names of these firms or consultants?

[Official Languages, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the minister's response earlier to the lack of regulation giving effect to part VII of the Official Languages Act. He seems to be saying that everything is going well, but the official languages commissioner gave 8 out of 16 agencies a failing grade in his second report.

Is the minister saying that he is proud of the performance by the agencies and departments, instead of doing his job and presenting regulations covering the responsibilities of each agency and each department with regard to the Official Languages Act?