Mauril Bélanger

[24 Sussex Drive, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Auditor General of Canada reported on the state of our official residences, including 24 Sussex Drive. The National Capital Commission estimates that rehabilitating that property would cost about $10 million and would require full access to the residence for up to 15 months. In 50 years there have been no renovations of significance at 24 Sussex, except for some roofing work a few years ago.

As the MP for the riding in which four of our official residences are located, I feel that it is my duty to urge the Prime Minister and his family to consider the NCC recommendations because 24 Sussex Drive belongs to all Canadians.

Now that the Auditor General has made her recommendations, I invite members from all parties to respect and support the Prime Minister and his family should they decide to allow the NCC to carry out the required work. It is not only a question of the proper management of our heritage but also of our national pride.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to you closely, just as I did yesterday when you presided over a part of the ceremony unveiling the portrait of Canada's 16th prime minister, the Right Honourable Joe Clark. I would like to quote something Mr. Clark said at the end in English:

“A little respect can go a long way”.

I am disappointed in your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This episode in the House is an attempt to go beyond what is permitted. The fact that a parliamentary secretary is trying to attack the reputation of a colleague directly, without any documentation—because he cannot produce any—demeans debate in the Canadian Parliament and the House of Commons.

I am very disappointed that your ruling basically allows this type of behaviour to continue.

[Arthur Kroeger, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the passing of a dedicated public servant and great Canadian. Arthur Kroeger passed away last Friday surrounded by his loved ones.

In 1958, following studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Kroeger joined the Department of External Affairs, thus beginning a public service career that spanned five decades.

From 1993 until 2002, he served as the Chancellor of Carleton University, which is now home to the Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs; a tribute to his enduring efforts to promote the ideals of civic involvement in young Canadians.

Known as the “dean of deputies”, he always remained true to his pledge of public service.

In 2006, he wrote Hard Passage: A Mennonite Family's Long Journey from Russia to Canada , a book that helps understand the formidable strength of character that forever inhabited Arthur Kroeger.

Our country has lost an outstanding citizen.

I know all members of this House will join me in offering our sincere condolences to his family and loved ones.

[John Therien, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Jean-Rock “John” Therien for 40 successful years as an athlete and businessman.

On April 1, 1968, John opened his first studio in Ottawa and now, Therien Jiu-jitsu and Kickboxing operates seven schools in the national capital region. Because of his tenacity and talent, John has become one of the most respected martial arts teachers.

Kyoshi Therien has earned many accolades over the years including 8th degree black belt and the Canadian government award for achievement in Jiu-Jitsu. He was named Man of the Decade (1980's) by the Professional Karate Association. And we should not forget that he was the manager of 23 time world kickboxing champion, Jean-Yves Thériault.

He has now been elected president of the Vanier Business Improvement Area board of directors, where he will use his talents, energy, creativity and enthusiasm to serve of his community.

Congratulations, John. We thank him for sharing his passion with the young and not so young all these years.

[Point of Order, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question put to him yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board quoted from a document, a sort of affidavit that the Conservatives had apparently submitted to the Federal Court and that was rejected. The rule of this House is very clear. When a minister or parliamentary secretary quotes from a document, he or she must table it.

I would like you to invite the member to table the document in this House, so we may all read its contents.

[Privilege, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question, the member for Nepean—Carleton accused me of using a Conservative scheme, whereby money from the national party is sent to local ridings which then send it back to the national party.

I have stated in this House that I never asked for nor received any money from the national party, be it in 1995, 1997, 2000, 2004 or 2006. Will the member for Nepean—Carleton state otherwise, or will he apologize?

[Privilege, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, in response to a question, the member for Nepean—Carleton made an offhand and disagreeable insinuation that was unworthy of Parliament, suggesting that I had done something contrary to the Canada Elections Act.

I have been a member of this House for 13 years and I have always tried and done my best, in my remarks, behaviour and actions, to respect the law, of course, but also to respect Parliament. All my reports to Elections Canada are in order; they have been produced in accordance with the law, and all my expenditures scrupulously submitted for authorization and verification.

When I was first elected in 1995, and then in 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006—and hopefully again in 2008 or 2009—I have never asked the Liberal Party of Canada for money and never received any from the Liberal Party of Canada. Any media expenditure was for local and regional advertising. To insinuate otherwise is an attack on the truth and my reputation as well as that of my official agent and everyone who has contributed to my campaign.

No wonder that even his Conservative colleagues in the Senate reject his remarks, as lacking politeness and accuracy. His own colleagues in the Senate are criticizing him for his inappropriate remarks in this House. That says a lot.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take this question of privilege under consideration and urge the member for Nepean—Carleton to stop making untrue statements, withdraw his remarks and apologize.

[April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, what we have just heard basically shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of the government to try to come up with a solution. Based on the existing budget, it could have reached an agreement with those people. Incidentally, I spoke with some of them and they expressed their agreement. They were interested in doing so. I am very surprised to hear the reverse.

Thus, it shows a lack of imagination, but it also shows a fierce determination to privatize everything. There was an allusion to private services. I could give loads of examples of museums and galleries all over the country that are complaining that the cost of services that will be provided from now on is going up by 30% or more. Thus, it shows a lack of imagination, as well as a desire to let the private sector do everything.

This really shows an unwillingness when it comes to having pride in these cultural instruments and this is causing a gradual, sometimes very underhanded, dismantling of the support given to culture and our institutions—

[April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this evening the matter of the exhibition transportation service program that was eliminated by the current government just a few days ago.

At the outset, I should ensure people understand that these are comments that I am making on a personal level, not as a critic. This is a function I no longer exercise. However, I believed then and I still do believe that we are making a big mistake here.

In March of last year, the government announced that it would basically abolish the exhibition transportation service, a service that had been working since 1976 through the aegis of the Canadian Conservation Institute and serving well over 100 institutions: galleries, exhibition centres and museums, large and small, throughout the land. It was mostly useful to ensure that works of art and exhibitions of interest to Canadians could move from larger centres, sometimes national collections from the National Gallery of Canada, and be seen throughout the land in smaller places, whether it be in the Northwest Territories, Yukon or Prince Edward Island.

The program was designed to do that and it did that very well. However, in March of last year an announcement was made, and I will quote the government document, which I would be quite prepared to table, in which Jeanne Inch, CCI director general, said:

We regret shutting down this service, and in fact, examined every option to keep it going. Unfortunately, we had no choice. It is, as one of our clients said, the end of an era.

This is where I have a problem. On November 19, I asked for a briefing from departmental officials and I did receive it. During that briefing, I asked them if they had considered one particular option. It is an option that members would be quite familiar with. In the nineties, the Government of Canada at the time had wanted to reduce the size of its public service, and there was an example that worked very well in terms of another approach.

The example was at the National Capital Commission where the people who worked at the park at the time were offered the option of creating a corporation of their own, which became Lafleur de la Capitale. They were given, on a sole-source basis, a first contract of five years, after which it would have to be renewed on a competitive basis. I believe it was once and now the corporation is working around town. It is actually doing some work on the Hill. I do not believe it has the contract anymore but it is still a going concern.

I was told at the time by the officials at Heritage that they had not thought of that and that they had not considered it. On December 6, I believe, I asked a question in the House and I was given an answer that they were working on it.

When the minister came to the committee in December, I repeated the suggestion personally to her and her deputy minister. However, it has been confirmed to me by the people at the exhibition transportation service that this was never considered and never discussed with them. I think at some point we need to start asking what the intent really was.

Did the government really want to save this useful program, which costs, not in the hundreds of millions, not even in the tens of millions and not even in the millions? It costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and serviced well over 100 institutions in the country and yet to no avail. The government shut it down and that is a terrible loss for--

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the measures we are being asked to enact require a couple of things.

The first one is that we have complete trust in our judicial system, and I do. I am not questioning the ability and the independence of our judicial system, although there have been murmurs from the government about the meddling of our judicial system and correspondingly, appointments that may reflect a certain bent. However, that is not the question.

Would my colleague agree that the same kind of trust, if we are to adopt these measures, would be required of our national police?