Mauril Bélanger

[Supreme Court Act, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will surprise anyone to hear that I will support this bill, but I want to say it to avoid any confusion. I support this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues in the official opposition and those in other parties to do the same. I will use my time to try to explain as openly as possible why I support this bill.

I hope we can all agree that our society is not static; we live in a society and a world that is constantly evolving. Everything changes. We hope that it is for the better. Pressure leads to change, and we always hope that it improves the situation. So it is not surprising that our laws reflect this desire to improve our society and to improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Today we are looking at the results of enacting of Canada's Official Languages Act in 1969, over 40 years ago. In those 40 years, the application of this legislation has continuously evolved, so much so that no one now opposes the notion that Canada has two official languages, French and English. That just shows how our society and our federation are always evolving.

In 1988, the Conservative government at the time, led by the right hon. Brian Mulroney, supported by the official opposition at the time, even made two amendments to this act. Furthermore, in 2005, another amendment was made by the Liberal government of the day, supported by the official opposition, which was led by the current Prime Minister of Canada. This shows that on both sides of the House, whether it is a Liberal government with a Conservative opposition, or a Conservative government with a Liberal opposition, we all seem to agree on the nature of this linguistic duality and its evolving nature.

The adoption of a charter of rights and freedoms within a constitutional framework and of amending formulas in 1985 is another example of this. It was quite a dramatic change, and it had been discussed for several decades in this country. I later had the opportunity and the honour, as a member, of sitting on a special committee that was formed to bring about a bilateral constitutional amendment between Quebec and Canada that changed the nature of the school boards in Quebec. With this amendment, the denominational school boards became English and French boards. This is yet another example of the changing nature of our society, its legislative framework and our institutions.

I can give other examples. New Brunswick declared itself officially bilingual when the official languages legislation was passed. It was the only province to do so. That was another occasion. Since then, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have all passed legislation, made regulations and adopted policies to give effect to Canada's linguistic duality.

Each of these occasions was marked by a strong determination to better reflect Canada's reality and ensure that all Canadians can be served in both languages, as well as the desire to learn together. There have also been changes at the municipal level. Moncton has declared itself an officially bilingual city. These are examples.

I now come to this bill.

I congratulate my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on his bill and the work he has done in this area. This bill is in keeping with the changing nature of our federation and its institutions.

When the National Assembly of Quebec began debating this bill, the party leaders—Mr. Charest, Mr. Dumont and Ms. Marois—had their say. The vote was unanimous; everyone was in favour of such an initiative. They saw that it made sense.

Our two solitudes sometimes need to come together and learn to get to know each other. Sometimes they unite, but above all they have to get along. I am going to give some other telling examples that concern all the members of the House.

In order to reflect the will of the people, the party leaders have learned both official languages. Some of my colleagues, those on either side of the House—government or opposition, I make no distinction—may hope to become ministers. People who are learning French or English in the House know that anyone who wants to become prime minister, must be able to address constituents in both of our country's official languages.

People who preside in the House must also learn the other official language. It shows respect, good will and recognition towards the two official languages. Those in charge of our institutions, such as Canada's Parliament, the political parties and the Supreme Court, must also speak both languages and be able to understand their fellow citizens, no matter which of our official languages they use. It is the same for the upper house.

Things are moving in the right direction. Bilingualism is part of our country's identity and my colleague's bill is part of this evolution.

I am not disagreeing with the Conservatives' argument that Supreme Court judges must be chosen based on their legal skills and good judgment. I believe that one of those skills is the ability to understand the language in which a person is presenting to them, be it French or English, our two official languages. It is logical to ask that the nine Supreme Court judges be able to understand both languages.

During the debate in Quebec, the party leaders I mentioned also recognized the fact that the judges from Quebec should speak both languages too.

I encourage all parties in the House to support my colleague's bill, which is fully in line with our country's evolution.

[International Day of La Francophonie, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Day of La Francophonie and it is a particularly important event because this is the 40th anniversary of the International Organization of La Francophonie.

Canada remains a leader in the francophone world. It is important to support this organization because it allows us to interact with francophone and francophile countries around the world.

As was previously mentioned, the international Francophonie is celebrating its 40th anniversary. This anniversary will celebrate diversity for peace and solidarity with the people of Haiti, who were hit by a terrible earthquake in January.

In conclusion, I hope that the government will recognize the importance and value of this organization to Canada's international influence.

[March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I cannot deny that some things were well done. No one is denying that, but that was not my question. The parliamentary secretary is contradicting herself. I heard her say that everything was perfect, but at the beginning of her speech, she acknowledged that everyone agreed that there was a serious lack of French in the opening ceremonies.

Billions of viewers across the world saw the image we projected of our country, and that is where Canada's linguistic duality was not accurately represented. That is how I feel, but there are many others who feel the same way, including the Premier of Quebec, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and even the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who had promised us something different.

The government needs to set the record straight and acknowledge that something went wrong. We want to know who is responsible for this and how they will ensure that it will not happen again in the future.

[March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. It seems that I dared to question the minister about certain things and I got a rather disagreeable response today to effect that his party was the only one that was proud of the performance of our athletes at the Olympic Games.

That is absolutely not true. Hon. members will recall that when Parliament resumed on March 4, the hon. members of the House from all parties celebrated and gave our athletes a standing ovation.

Hon. members will also recall that it was the same thing when Barbara Ann Scott came to the House with the Olympic flame. Everyone, without exception, was happy.

Today I heard the minister say that his party was the only one that was proud of the Games. Let us be clear: we were all happy.

My question on March 4 was on the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. I dared to quote the minister himself, who said the next day in all the newspapers across the country that there should have been more French. Those were his words, not mine. I was quoting him. He was not the only one to say so either. The Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, made some comments as well. I watched the opening ceremonies and I can say that, as a francophone, at one point I did not really identify with the ceremonies.

That is what my question was about. Today, again, the minister quoted the Commissioner of Official Languages with regard to the Olympic Games. Let us not forget what the Commissioner of Official Languages said about the opening ceremonies, “What I saw at the opening ceremonies was a concert which had been conceived, developed, and presented in English, with a French song. It wasn't what I expected”.

That is not at all what the minister told us today. I wanted to start by setting the record straight.

I wanted to know why the minister had given in to the Conservative habit of going into hiding and hiding documents instead of sharing information with Canadians. In this case it is somewhat understandable, because the specifications that I was looking for and that journalists were looking for were only available in English. We can understand why the government and the minister were embarrassed.

We had to ask the Standing Committee on Official Languages for the document. I would like to thank all the members of the committee for unanimously agreeing to this request. However, we had to wait an extra week for the document so that it could be translated. I can understand why he hesitated to make it public, but let's move on.

The specifications for the ceremonies, which we now have, say only one thing, and I will quote it. I think it is important that people know this. I am referring to point k in annex E of the document, a contribution agreement that committed Canadians to chip in $20 million for the ceremonies. That is a significant amount. This is what it says:

k) Opening and Closing ceremonies will be in both official languages and the national anthem will be sung in its bilingual version; the program will include participants and events which represent both official language groups;

I believe that this is a bit minimalist, and it makes no reference to the equality of the two languages. We will await the conclusion of the study that the Commissioner of Official Languages is now conducting after receiving 40 complaints about the games and a number about the opening ceremonies.

[Official Languages, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister is sticking to his position, but it is not clear which one.

While he went on and on to assure us that linguistic duality was respected at the Games, some 40 complaints were filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Will the minister admit that the simple fact that his directives were issued in English only is evidence perhaps of negligence, or at least indifference, but certainly a lack of leadership?

Fortunately, we had our athletes to be proud of, because this government gives us nothing to be proud of.

[Official Languages, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the day after the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver Games, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said, “I thought the opening ceremonies were brilliant, beautiful, spectacular on television, but there should have been more French.” In response to my question of March 4, he said, “We kept our promises regarding the official languages during the Olympic Games.”

Sometimes two ministers contradict one another. How does the minister explain contradicting himself?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as this particular period of five minutes is called questions and comments, I will take that as a comment and not a question.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would love to have a debate in this House about question period and I might have some opinions that the member might be interested in as well. We are on ten percenters but I will, nonetheless, try to address it.

I get asked this question quite often by Canadians, not only from the riding I represent but from across the country. My answer is pretty well the same every time. I tell them that there is one member in the House whose behaviour I can control and that is mine. Therefore, I have committed in my behaviour in this House to be as respectful as I can, to be truthful and to be as direct as I possibly can.

Beyond the fact that I categorically refuse to send ten percenters beyond the riding of Ottawa--Vanier, I also refuse to engage in certain questions during question period. It is an individual decision as to how we ask a question, whether or not we were prepared to ask it, and, having been on the other side, answering them as well. It is also an individual decision within certain restrictions because we are all part of a political party and a political formation, so there is that reality as well.

It behooves us all individually to improve the decorum in this House and the responsibility rests with each and every one of us.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am very pleased to take part in this discussion.

I will focus exclusively on the matter of ten percenters. For people who may be tuning in now or listening to the debate, I will take a minute to try to explain what they are.

Every member of Parliament in the House is entitled to send to his or her constituents a householder four times a year. In addition, we are also allowed, as members, to send to 10% of the population in the riding, what is now called a ten percenter, as often as we want.

Over the years, and I would love to understand exactly when it happened and perhaps someday someone will look into it, it evolved to allowing members to send these beyond the borders of their riding as well. Someone told me that it was at the time of a redistribution and members were allowed to send those out to introduce themselves.

Be that as it may, it has now become the routine and the practice in the House that members can send ten percenters to anyone in any other riding as well.

The debate we are now engaged in as parliamentarians is whether this practice has become abusive in the way we have turned to using it. I am not casting aspersions on any particular party. I think we are all engaged in this practice. It is very legitimate discussion on whether we should continue that practice.

I hear numbers that are rather astronomical in terms of their use, ranging from up to or even more than 10 million such pieces being sent per month by one party. I have no way of confirming that. The information is not readily available to members. However, I have yet to hear anyone deny it, and I have yet to hear anyone deny that we are costing taxpayers in excess of $10 million through these instruments.

They have also evolved in their nature. It used to be they were perhaps used to inform and advise, first, our constituents and then beyond. They have evolved to include the logos of parties and, in some instances, almost as attack pieces on individual sitting members. I, for one, think that is wrong and is a misuse of public funds.

I also quite squarely put to each and every one of my colleagues the very simple proposition that it is within each of our means to prevent that. Each one of us must sign off on the use of grouped ten percenters that are sent in a riding, where 10 members get together and each assign themselves 10% and off it goes to someone else's riding. We must give our permission for our name to be put on those.

I will stand here and say that I have squarely refused to engage in that behaviour. All members in the House, regardless of party, has the same ability to refuse if they perceive the practice has become abusive. I have heard comments from here and there that indeed there is that perception. Therefore, I invite them to consider, the same as I have decided, not to allow my party and the officers in my party to send those under my name. I will let that stand where it is.

This thing has now grown beyond these matters. I refer my members to November 18, 2008, the first day of this 40th Parliament, when we were asked to pick a Speaker. Six of us let our names stand. All of us made the same comments on the need for more decorum, civility, respect of each other, especially in the situation where the government is in a minority Parliament.

After these debates and the vote and our current Speaker was reaffirmed in his position, the four party leaders in the House stood up, and I would like to quote what they said.

The Prime Minister, speaking to the Speaker, said:

Today I believe a clear message has been sent. Your colleagues have expressed their desire to see better order prevail in this House, and I am confident that you will ensure that our debates are productive and civilized.

The leader of the official opposition said:

At a time when Canada has a minority government and is facing economic turmoil, we need to have cooperation more than ever. We need to have decorum and mutual respect. We all count on you to help this House with that. It is a responsibility that we must all share as well.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois said:

That said, I believe that we must improve the way we do business in this House. Everyone has called for greater decorum and more discipline. I believe that all parties have a duty to help make things better.

The leader of the NDP said:

One thing became very clear to all of us and it was raised in this discussion. We have to do a better job on behalf of Canadians to represent the kind of dignified and respectful debate that they look for in the House of Commons. I believe there may be a new sense that we are intent on doing that. I want to encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to use the powers that you have at your disposal to make sure that happens.

This would indicate that there was at the time a genuine desire to see if we could improve the situation. I put to my colleagues in the House that if some ten percenters are used as attack pieces by whomever, against whomever, it does not add to the decorum, the civility and the ability to get along and to work together, whether we may agree on certain issues because we will disagree. This is after all a house of partisan matters. We come here espousing certain beliefs and certain views. We are here to discuss them and to try to convince each other of the rightfulness of our approach. Then at the end of the day a vote is taken and whatever the majority view prevails and we go on.

If we are to engage in these sort of attacks, heaven help us all. It will be very difficult to engage in a very respectful manner. Therefore, I certainly hope we would discontinue the use of ten percenters beyond one's riding.

I understand the NDP has put forward an amendment, but I cannot subscribe to it in the sense that we have, as members of Parliament, an untold range of options available to us to communicate not only with our own constituents, but beyond, be it mail, email, the national media, websites, social media, be it going there and visiting. We have all these capacities at our disposal.

I would hope if we see an abuse of a particular device that has been made available to members, that we would curtail it. The national media have called for that as well. When Le Devoir did a very lengthy and detailed piece on this, it sparked a lot of interest, so much so that the Globe and Mail then picked it up and pontificated about ten percenters. It did not come to a clear decision, but the Toronto Star did. The National Post went even further to say that all ten percenters should be abolished. I do not think we could go that far. They can be a very useful tool for a member in the riding that he or she represents. The Edmonton Journal also called for them to be curtailed.

We have a series of circumstances that have grown beyond what I believe was their original intent, to give a tool to members to communicate with their constituents. That is still a valid use of that tool, but its use beyond ridings has grown into proportions that cast us all in a bad light. I really do believe we ought to take a very serious look, collectively, at curtailing that practice.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not understand my question, but we understand that the government has no interest in being flexible.

However, does the member realize the position he is putting some people in with his lack of openness?

Many members of Ottawa's Haitian community are faced with the possibility of having to sell their homes and move to Gatineau if they want to sponsor a family member who is over 18, for example.

Does the government realize how unfair this is and the impossible situation it is putting people in?