Mauril Bélanger

[National Cemetery of Canada Act, February 27th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, An Act to establish the National Cemetery of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce Bill C-408, An Act to establish the National Cemetery of Canada in the House this morning.

First I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans for seconding this bill, and I know that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre will express his desire, later today, to second it as well.

The purpose of this bill is essentially to make Beechwood Cemetery the National Cemetery of Canada. Statesmen and stateswomen are buried in that cemetery as are a number of generals. In fact, a rather accurate reflection of this country can be found there.

I am pleased that the representatives of the cemetery and its not for profit foundation have demonstrated their respect for the bilingual nature of our country, our linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

The people who have been managing the cemetery for the last few years have demonstrated their sensitivity to the make up of Canada and the cemetery now reflects Canada's cultural diversity. It also reflects the proud military history and of the police. In effect, all the ingredients that are necessary for a national cemetery are found there.

I hope my colleagues will see the non-partisan aspect of this bill by the fact that members of the government and the other opposition parties have supported it, and will see to it that it becomes law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the remaining three or four minutes to make some comments, rather than ask a question, since this member has already been asked several questions. I understand that I must leave time for my colleague to respond.

Five years ago, the day after the terrorist attacks, I was in this House and I participated in the debate on the bill. At that time, some members showed an obvious desire to create sunset clauses. We decided then that it would be necessary to demonstrate a need to use them. We were going through a rather tough, difficult and unique time. Law enforcement officials and government agencies answered the government's call to put forth measures that could be helpful.

Among the multitude of measures, some were problematic; however, as legislators, we were not sure. Both chambers agreed to provide for a five-year period to establish that these clauses were necessary. We can definitely say that they have not proven to be necessary; on the contrary, they were never used. At present, government supporters are saying that we have flip-flopped and changed our minds, but that is not at all the case. We are being consistent. We were the ones who saw the need to introduce sunset clauses. In no way do I accept this attempt to make tomorrow night's vote a partisan game.

We have also learned from our mistakes, because that is what we all must do, I would hope. In the past few years, we realized what had to be done. We also strengthened our rule of law and our police forces and we invested billions of dollars in security. These clauses do not really seem to be necessary. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me, given that the need for these two sunset clauses being debated today has not been proven. To be consistent, we must vote against extending these clauses today or tomorrow.

[Canadian Writers' Foundation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to the Canadian Writers' Foundation as it marks its 75th anniversary.

The foundation is Canada's premier organization helping our authors who at some point in their lives may require financial assistance to meet everyday needs. Some of Canada's better writers, including E.J. Pratt, Alfred Desrochers, Milton Acorn, Roger Brien, Dorothy Livesay and Norman Levine, have called upon this body for assistance.

I believe that writers, including poets, are important for the well-being of our society. I therefore applaud the dedication of the Canadian Writers' Foundation.

On behalf of my fellow parliamentarians, I would like to congratulate the foundation and the volunteers who give of their time day after day.

[Heritage, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are marking Heritage Day, a national celebration created by the Heritage Canada Foundation and observed on the third Monday of every February.

Heritage Day brings attention to some of the neighbourhoods and landscapes that reflect Canada's rich cultural heritage, for instance, in urban places like The Main in Montreal, or the Byward Market and St. Brigid's Roman Catholic Church in Ottawa—Vanier, the riding I have the honour of representing, or in rural places like Tilting on Fogo Island in Newfoundland, and the Ukrainian Four Corner Settlement in Gardenton, Manitoba.

In response to the government's cancellation this past September of the commercial heritage properties incentive fund, the Heritage Canada Foundation and its partners are calling for federal financial incentives for rehabilitation that would help Canadians protect their built heritage landmarks instead of seeing them end up as landfill.

[Pierre Fortier, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of Mr. Pierre Fortier, at the age of 75, on January 30, following a brief illness.

Emeritus professor of French and French Canadian literature in Saint-Boniface, at Laurentian University, and for 30 years at York University's Glendon College, Mr. Fortier worked relentlessly for the francophone communities of Ontario and Toronto. In 1984, he co-founded the Toronto Historical Society, to which he dedicated time and energy until the very last few weeks. He also did volunteer work for over 20 years with the Centres d'accueil Héritage.

Mr. Fortier was honoured on a number of occasions for his excellent work and contribution to Toronto's francophone community. In 2004, he received the Ontario senior achievement award from the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario for his major contribution to the francophone community after the age of 65.

On behalf of that same community, we thank Mr. Fortier for everything that he did throughout his life.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's first question, whether it is reasonable that a person can be authorized to vouch for the information of only one other person, in other words, an individual cannot vouch for five or six people, I would say, yes, I think that is reasonable.

Otherwise, we would have a situation in which the representatives of the political parties, for example, could sit at a polling station and would be responsible for saying yes all day long. We would be no further ahead. I think that is reasonable.

If this proves in fact to be too stringent, Parliament, in its wisdom, could correct the situation. However, I do not believe that this will be necessary. In my view, the proposal is reasonable.

The question concerning people's dates of birth is very delicate. I would point out that an incident occurred here in this House. A member of the government party received some information at her office concerning passport applications. It seems that she could have later used that information to send greetings for birthdays and so on.

Some would say that this was not an appropriate way to obtain information.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of each political party, of each member and candidate for all the political parties, to use all personal information very carefully and judiciously. Candidates who do otherwise will certainly pay the price.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-31 at the report stage. This bill includes a number of amendments that are basically grouped into three sections, in addition to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, at the report stage. I will focus primarily on the foundation of the bill, that is, the amendments concerning the electoral list, its preparation, maintenance, use, precision and accuracy.

From time to time, it is a good idea to evaluate the process in order to ensure that elections—either Canada's general elections or byelections, the elections that bring us into this House—are properly structured and accurately reflect the will of the population.

Recently, since the list was created, many questions have been raised about its quality.

Without criticizing anyone in particular, I believe it is important from time to time for parliamentarians to assess the situation and offer corrections, if needed. That is essentially what we are doing today. The Chief Electoral Officer and the committee have thought about this issue and made recommendations to the government. Generally speaking, the government seems to have accepted these recommendations to ensure that the permanent list of electors is better structured and that the accuracy of the information is improved.

It will be possible to obtain information from both the federal and provincial levels. The information could be combined better and given an identifier in order to avoid the duplication of names and so forth. In my opinion, these amendments should generally improve the permanent list of electors.

There is also the whole issue of voter turnout. We have heard comments about this from our colleagues. They mentioned the decline in voter turnout in Canada. In the past, questions were raised about the quality of the list and the number of duplications. Would this situation not be artificially lowering the turnout rate among the Canadian public? If the list is inflated with a few too many duplications, then such an improvement in preparing the list could eliminate this problem.

That is what I had to say about the first series of amendments to the bill. I did not hear anyone categorically oppose them.

The second series has to do with the need to identify the electors on polling day or when electors want to register on the list of electors on polling day.

On this matter, I share the concerns and apprehensions of a number of my colleagues that the system, as it is currently structured, could be abused.

On election day, when one goes from polling station to polling station and sees several dozen people waiting to register on the list of electors, one is entitled to ask what is wrong with the system.

There is not necessarily any fraudulent activity involved but, obviously, something is not right with the system. In my opinion, it is up to us to eliminate all opportunities for abuse. I believe it is fair to ask for photo identification, a government identification card or an identification card that is recognized or authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Most Canadians have no problem with that.

These days when we get on a plane, we have to have photo ID. It is also required when applying for credit and when young people want to have a drink.

Photo ID is often required to join a political party, or to fight for a nomination in a riding or the leadership of a party.

I think that asking voters and citizens to present photo ID is quite acceptable and normal. I would perhaps be less inclined to accept this if there were no other means of registering. We have to recognize that some citizens may find it difficult to obtain photo ID.

The system will continue to allow citizens to register without photo ID under certain conditions. Someone must be able to verify that the information provided by the person wishing to register is true and accurate.

I have to admit that I did hear of some situations in certain areas of the country where, on the day of the election, hundreds, even thousands, of individuals arrived to register. This was cause for concern or, at least, food for thought.

The parliamentary committee did its work and proposed legitimate recommendations. The government has accepted them and we will now proceed with these changes so that Canadians will have greater confidence in our electoral system.

I must admit that I am not inclined, at this point at least—unless I am shown evidence of fraud—to go so far as to require a voter's card. We have heard about them and some colleagues have seen them in certain countries.

In some situations, such as when an electoral process is just being introduced, a voter's card can be beneficial. Last summer, two of my parliamentary colleagues and I had the opportunity to participate in the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo as observers. Voter's cards really went a long way toward inspiring confidence in the electoral process there.

I do not think we are at that stage, so I do not think we need a voter's card. But that is not what the bill is proposing. The bill is proposing that voters can use any piece of government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's licence, a passport or a health card. I support that.

I think that most Canadians will recognize that this makes sense.

Our colleagues from the New Democratic Party highlighted one of the administrative measures in Part 3 concerning casual hiring—from 90 to 125 days. The Chief Electoral Officer requested this power. The committee acted wisely in leaving that power with the Public Service Commission which will be able to increase the number of days a person can work casually from 90 to 125 days per year, at its discretion. The Public Service Commission has a great deal of knowledge about and experience managing the public service and will be able to bring in appropriate regulations in this case. I am comfortable with that way of doing things.

From the comments I have heard, all of my colleagues recognize that it is essential that Canadians have confidence in the electoral process. When issues come up, it is our duty as parliamentarians to stop, think and find a solution if we can. If it is theoretically possible to abuse the system, we must act to eliminate that possibility, at least in theory. That is what this bill is proposing.

All in all, this is a positive bill that will move things forward. It will not stop us from checking periodically to make sure that the spirit of the bill is being respected and that those goals are being met, and, if they are not, bringing in new solutions.

[Points of Order, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I raised a question yesterday and hoped that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons could address this point of order.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, in one of her answers, cited a letter from a minister in the Government of Ontario. I feel that the Standing Orders of this House require that the letter be tabled here in this House.

Did the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons follow up on that request?

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during the same response from the same minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, she quoted from a letter received from an Ontario minister, Minister Pupatello. Having quoted from that letter, the minister should be tabling that letter for the House, I believe, so that we can all read it at our leisure. I would invite the government House leader to make sure that happens forthwith.

[Lloyd Francis, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago, the Hon. Lloyd Francis died.

I have the honour, on behalf of the official opposition, to say a few words today in the memory of Lloyd Francis.

As has been said, his was a life of public service.

During the second world war, he joined the RCAF, where he served as a navigation instructor.

Post-war, he obtained a masters degree from the University of Toronto and a doctorate in labour economics from the University of Wisconsin.

After three years at the University of Buffalo, Lloyd and his first wife, Margery, returned to Ottawa to stay.

As a senior economist at Health and Welfare Canada, he contributed directly to the creation of the Canada pension plan. After that, he began his political career. After becoming president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, an alderman and deputy mayor of Ottawa, he was elected Liberal member for Carleton in 1963 and won reelection in 1968, 1974 and 1980, that is to say every other election.

In his 15-plus years in this House, while always putting the interests of his constituents first, he was successively and successfully committee vice-chair, chair, deputy whip and whip of the Liberal Party, parliamentary secretary, Deputy Speaker and, finally, Speaker.

In 1984, Privy Councillor Francis became Canada's ambassador to Portugal, a position from which he retired to care for his ailing wife.

When Lloyd retired, he was active, both internationally as electoral observer and leader of delegations, and locally pursuing his hobby as a lapsmith.

Throughout his life, Lloyd was not one to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. He got involved for the betterment of his fellow citizens and he never hesitated to give his frank opinion, quite often whether it was wanted or not. As for rocks, as we know, Lloyd did not throw them, he collected them.

Many referred to him as a maverick. I disagree. I worked with Lloyd in the early eighties and got to know him reasonably well, and better since.

Rather than being a maverick, Lloyd was an open book. Lloyd fought for his constituents and his city, period. There were no ulterior motives, no hidden agenda and no guile in him. What we got was the real thing, unsweetened and unfiltered; a sort of precursor to CPAC.

On behalf of all Liberal members and, I hope, all my colleagues in the House, I would like to tell his family what a big difference Lloyd Francis made to this place. He left a House that was better run, a deeply grateful civil service, a city that had expanded, a well represented country and a proud and loving family.

Only with time will Lloyd's exemplary life of public service be fully appreciated. Time will polish its many facets as he polished the facets of the treasures he found or created in his private and public life. We will remember him.