Mauril Bélanger

[Petitions, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of fellow Canadians, mostly from the national capital region, although some of them might be a bit outside of it. Therefore, they are mostly from Quebec and Ontario.

They call on the ministers of health of Canada and the provinces to get together to discuss allowing hospitals, private clinics and individual doctors to test for and treat CCSVI in all Canadians who desire testing and treatment and to plan and implement a nationwide clinical trial for the evaluation of venography and balloon venoplasty for the treatment of CCSVI in persons diagnosed with MS.

[Petitions, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by fellow Canadians most of whom are from Quebec and Ontario. They are calling on the Minister of Health to convene a meeting of ministers of health of the provinces and of the federal government to discuss allowing hospitals, private clinics and individual doctors to test for and treat CCSVI in all Canadians who so desire testing and treatment, and to plan and implement a nationwide clinical trial for the evaluation of venography and balloon venoplasty for the treatment of CCSVI in persons diagnosed with MS.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. Perhaps there was a problem with the interpretation. I will confirm that. I did not say that all the information accumulated so far would be lost. However, the usefulness of that information could be considerably reduced because the continuity would be broken. I am not the one who says so; professional statisticians and historians said so repeatedly this summer before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The member can try to put words in people's mouths, but he will not succeed in my case. I know what I said and I would be willing to do so anytime, anywhere. As for the issue of the threat of imprisonment, he can repeat that all he likes, but on this side of the House, we agree it should be removed. So I do not understand his problem. We simply have to get rid of it. Besides, if he does not want to do it, we will; we will remove prison sentences. There is a big difference between that and deciding not to ask Canadians for information. I wonder if the government would be willing to let Revenue Canada do the same. I doubt it.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of the documents the FCFA presented to the court is an affidavit signed by Ms. Bender, assistant chief statistician at Statistics Canada, who clearly states that the results obtained from a survey like the one proposed by the government would be less reliable than the results obtained from the mandatory long form, especially for small groups, including minority francophone communities and certain minority anglophone communities.

Thus, the impact is more serious for the communities my colleague is talking about, which is why the FCFA felt it had to go before the courts to exercise its constitutional and legal rights as recognized by the House, or by both Houses and the Parliament of Canada.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the debate today because I had a wonderful opportunity all day yesterday and half the day today to be a spectator at a presentation that was being held not far from here in one of the two courts in the Supreme Court of Canada building, the Federal Court of Canada. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne was there to present its application to have the government's decision announced in August overturned and to request an order to make the census form that the government is proposing to send out next year mandatory and not voluntary.

I will mainly focus on the official languages aspect of this unfortunate decision by the government to drop the long form census—as it is proposing to do—which was mandatory, and to make it voluntary, although sent to more people. The people from Statistics Canada have testified by affidavit. I could provide the hon. member opposite with a quote from the testimony of these people who, without reservation, have said that information obtained by Statistics Canada, government agencies and all those using such a survey, would be less valid and reliable than information obtained through a mandatory census form.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne is focusing mainly on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, part VII, subsections 41(1) and 41(2) in particular. Some colleagues in the House will recall that it was in 2005 that we made the last changes to this section of the act that I will now read in order to give everyone some context in this debate.

Subsection 41(1) of the Official Languages Act states that:

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Subsection 41(2), entitled, “Duty of federal institutions”, reads:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1). For greater certainty, this implementation shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.

I mentioned that these amendments were passed in 2005, when we were in power. I was the minister responsible. And I must say to my colleagues across the way that they supported these amendments. Also, I thought that they had understood the meaning of what they had approved at that time.

I would like to make a few comments about the intent of the lawmaker at that time. The commissioner of official languages at that time, Dyane Adam, made a wonderful comparison that I would like to share. The lawmaker's main intention was to create an obligation for all agencies and departments in the Government of Canada.

I would like to remind the members that this section was added to the Official Languages Act in 1988 under the Mulroney government. But it was mainly seen as a wish and not an obligation. It was not binding. In 2005, as a result of Bill S-3, which was introduced by my predecessor in the House, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, we jointly amended the Official Languages Act to create this obligation and make it binding on all agencies and departments. I want to highlight that this law, which was implemented within a year, applies to all departments and agencies.

At that time, Ms. Adam made a comparison to help people understand the new obligation that had been created. It was an obligation to act positively because we were dealing with positive measures. She compared it to a trip to the doctor. If someone goes to the doctor, the doctor is obligated to act and must, therefore, make a diagnosis. And that combines the government's obligation to undertake consultations and to obtain the most accurate information possible. With this diagnosis, the doctor can then prescribe something—medication, an operation or something else. There is an obligation to act. There is no guarantee of results, but there is an obligation to act on the diagnosis.

With the adoption of this section of the act, Government of Canada departments and agencies now have the obligation to act based on consultation, that is, based on information which, it is hoped, is as accurate as possible. Hence the responsibility of one agency in particular, Statistics Canada, to do what it must to obtain accurate information. This was part of the basis for the application of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to the court. I am anxious to see the court's decision. It seems that the decision may come fairly quickly given the circumstances. I will be watching. I understand the sub judice convention. I spoke about the facts and did not venture into interpretation. I will leave that to the courts, and that is as it should be.

I was listening to the presentation by the government's lawyers this morning. They argued that because there are no regulations there is no obligation with respect to the census. That argument is somewhat disturbing because we must not forget the legal hierarchy where the Constitution is at the top, followed by laws, and after the laws, there may be regulations, and after regulations, there may be guidelines for application. Just because there are no regulations does not mean that the law is null and void and that the responsibilities of the agencies and the government with respect to the law are diminished. That seems to be the gist of what they were arguing this morning. I look forward to the court's decision and eventually, if there is an appeal, the final decision. In fact, it may be appropriate at that time for lawmakers to adjust the act by regulation or amendments so that the intention is not misunderstood.

I would also like to say that the government's decision is unfortunate because if it is not reversed, it would affect everything that has been done since the last census, the post-census studies. This point is worth our consideration. A post-census study does not just have to do with official languages, but that is certainly one important aspect. For example, not too long ago, I went to visit my friends in the Eastern Townships. They were nice; they gave me a study, in both languages, on the anglophone community in the Eastern Townships.

It is “Profile of the English-speaking Community in the Eastern Townships”, second edition. They were quite proud to give me this document, because it is a document that gives a very precise profile of their communities and their membership. It would be rather disastrous if we could not produce this kind of document and profile anymore, which would be a consequence of not having the mandatory long form census.

I have tried to understand the government's intention here, and all I can conclude—and we all agree, at least those who bothered to try to understand—that as soon as a census becomes optional, the wealthy will be less inclined to fill it out in full, and so will the poor and the most vulnerable. So we will have a less-than-complete portrait of society and its inequalities. The only thing I can figure is that by abolishing this mandatory census the government is trying to camouflage, conceal or hide all of the inequalities in our society. Then it would feel less pressure to create programs to eliminate these inequalities, or at least to reduce them. I find that deplorable.

Now it is very clear that the government is not presenting us with a hidden agenda. Their agenda is clear, and Canadians have to deal with it.

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as for the matter of official languages, we will see how that ends because the matter will be determined in court very shortly, so I will leave that one alone for now.

I love this debate because the more the member for Burlington is trying to rationalize this decision, the more he digs the hole for his party, which is fine by me, because the people who attended the committee, the experts, were really quite clear.

The number of people who respond to this is not the issue. If we have a sampling, and all of the sampling must respond because it is mandatory, we therefore create a situation where we establish a benchmark and, from that benchmark, everything flowing can be tested, measured and validated. However, if it is voluntary, we create a built-in bias.

Those wealthy people will tend to seek anonymity and therefore will tend not to respond. Those who are more vulnerable, poorer or who do not understand the language as well will tend not to respond and we end up with data that has a built-in bias. Every expert on census confirmed that and the member just puts it aside by waving his hand. However, it does not work that way.

This is not a question. It is a comment--

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the agency responsible for the census in the United States of America tried this approach of going from a mandatory form to a voluntary one, and after seeing the results, decided to revert back to a mandatory questionnaire. This was done during the George W. Bush administration.

The question for my colleague is this: If a country very similar to ours attempted what we are proposing to attempt and realized that it was not working, that the information it was yielding had a built-in bias, why then are we not willing to learn from that experience and not go down that road, spending $30 million more to get less valid information?

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for his views on two areas where the Government of Canada has particular responsibilities that cannot be devolved through any other order of government. I am dealing with matters concerning the aboriginal communities and matters dealing with official language minority communities.

First, I will deal with the aboriginal communities and I will couple that with the concept of honour of the Crown by which the government is obliged to consult the aboriginal communities in any way, shape or form in decisions that might affect them. I did attend both sessions of the industry committee. We had one representative from the Inuit community and we asked that person whether or not there had been any consultations from the government vis-à-vis its decision to scrap the mandatory long form census and the answer was obviously no, there had not been any.

Would the member care to comment about the importance of the mandatory long form census and the information it yields to the ability of the Government of Canada to do what is right for our aboriginal communities?

[September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not answering my question in the least. I took part in a public meeting in the weeks following the earthquake. There were nearly 1,000 people of Haitian origin in the room. Not all Haitian Canadians live in Quebec. Officials from the department were encouraging the citizens of my riding to sponsor whomever they wanted, even if those individuals were not eligible under the department's definition of family at the time.

The parliamentary secretary is singing the praises of Quebec. I urged the Canadian government to be as flexible as Quebec, but it did not do so. Haitians have been encouraged to come here, yet they are not being allowed to do so. I think that is awful. The government refuses to reimburse these people, who could have sent money to their loved ones in Haiti. The government has completely missed the boat and is treating these people unfairly. We will revisit this issue.

[September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in May, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question about our fellow citizens of Haitian origin who had tried or were trying to sponsor family members to come to Canada. That was four months after the January 12 earthquake. It has now been eight months.

I have to admit that some files have progressed. Some files, in particular, that had been initiated before the earthquake. But after the minister's answer to my question, I realized that the government did not seem prepared to temporarily broaden the definition of family member, as was done in Quebec, to include family members that do not fit within the existing definition.

I therefore asked the minister whether the government was prepared to broaden the definition of family, because at the time, it was receiving tens of thousands of dollars in sponsorship application fees—$550 per adult and $150 per child. I have several constituents who paid thousands of dollars and who are now left broke and without any family members here.

Here is an example. Before the earthquake, a woman by the name of Magali Micheline Théogène was trying to sponsor her mother. After the earthquake, she contacted the department. Government representatives encouraged her to sponsor her two sisters as well, even though they did not meet the age requirement and were over the age usually allowed. That cost her $1,100 more. Then she was told that her sisters each needed a medical exam at $200 apiece. She spent $1,500, and has just been told that her two sisters are not eligible because they do not meet the requirements, yet it was departmental officials who encouraged her to sponsor their applications.

In light of this situation, there is something my constituents of Haitian origin would like to know. Since the government did not broaden the definition of family members, but encouraged people to sponsor applications costing them thousands of dollars, applications that were then denied, can that money be refunded? Given the situation in which their relatives found themselves and still find themselves in Haiti, the $1,100 that Ms. Théogène gave the government—which really did not need it—could be a big help to her two sisters in Haiti.

Once again, I am asking the government to seriously consider reimbursing our fellow citizens of Haitian origin who submitted sponsorship applications because departmental officials encouraged them to do so even though those applications were never going to be approved. I am asking the government to reimburse these good people so that they can use the money to help their relatives still in Haiti.