Mauril Bélanger

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 13th, 2006]

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 parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the election observation mission held in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, from July 28 to August 1, 2006.

[RCMP Commissioner, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety. I would like to know whether the minister has or does not have confidence in the Commissioner of the RCMP.

If he cannot tell us today, does he pledge to tell us tomorrow, or at the very least this week, whether or not he has confidence in the Commissioner of the RCMP?

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I fondly remember the efforts of I and my colleague in Charlottetown. We were rather successful in this community because there were only a few areas in the country where Canadians voted in favour of that. The National Capital Region happened to be one of them. Some people might try to dissect that in any which way they can, and I will let them do that.

I had the pleasure to be in the House and supported the distinct society motion without any hesitation. It is a recognition of the state of fact. What I was trying to say is it is sometimes with envy that I look at the dynamics of Quebec society in cultural and economic matters, its ingenuity and so forth. It is a recognition that it is a society with some distinct characteristics, some of them enshrined in law, le droit commun versus le régime napoléonique, some of the enshrined in law in terms of language rights for education and other matters and some of them enshrined in custom, in the way it does things. The country has not suffered for that. Au contraire, the richness and diversity of our country, Canada, has benefited tremendously from the francophone presence as well as the presence of others in Quebec who are not francophone.

Canada is a good representation of the human species in that we accommodate each other. We recognize we cannot all be the same. It would be damn boring if we were. We are not the same in the country, but we do not diminish differences. We value them. We take great pleasure and pride in the fact that we can accommodate diversity from around the world in our country, but it could not work or happen if we had not initially recognized the two founding nations and our aboriginal societies and accommodated each other that way. If we could not do that at the level of linguistic duality, how could we go beyond that and start talking about pluralism.

We have done that. We have accommodated each other, and not in a tolerant manner but respectfully. That is the way of the world. In that sense, the motion before us today builds on that and pushes us in the same direction.

Some of us may have some hesitation, differences or second thoughts on it. I have received some of those messages. However, let us put those aside for the benefit of our country. Let us rise above partisan politics for the benefit of our country. Let us think of our children and grandchildren instead of ourselves for a while and think of what we will cede to them in terms of a great country that is the envy of the world. Let us keep building this place.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke a bit of the recent history of the country, we cannot ignore the fact that twice, in 1980 and in 1995, the population of that province said, “We won't separate from Canada. We want to remain in Canada”.

At that time, those of us who were involved in those debates and those referendums will remember that there was a commitment from the rest of the country toward that population that there had to be some accommodation and some recognition. That was done by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, among others. Over the years since then, we have grappled with that, and now we are coming to terms with a significant portion of that commitment in recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. Those are very important words because they are the words that show we respect the decision that the population of the province of Quebec made twice.

There is nothing nefarious in the motion that the Prime Minister has put forward here. It is a reflection of a commitment that was made by the country toward the population of Quebec in 1980 and in 1995 when both times the population of Quebec said, in a majority voice, that they wished to remain in Canada. That commitment we made has yet to be delivered upon. What we are doing today when we vote on this and, I hope, adopt that motion, is part and parcel of the commitment we made to those who said that they wanted to keep this country united.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for this opportunity to speak this morning to this government proposal, this motion that is so very important for the future of our country.

From the outset, I want to say without hesitation that I intend to support this motion presented this morning for the government by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I intend to speak to a few subjects that are important to me: I will talk about my background and my own view of the motion before us, its meaning and its importance for the future of our country.

We all agree that this issue is important in the historical context of our country. Our country was shaped by two founding peoples, as well as by the aboriginal nations, the first nations. It was built up with every passing decade, sometimes with difficulty and tension that manifested itself one way or another, but always with the goal of improving life for the citizens of the country, especially for our children and grandchildren.

I think it is right to say that over the years and through the generations we have succeeded in Canada in creating a country where people see improvement in their economic situation, their civil status and their living conditions. It is important for us to be able to continue down that path. For that we need to have harmony, coherence, a vision, an open mind and an open spirit, qualities which I believe this country has always demonstrated.

In recent years this historical context has been tested. As we all know, this happened twice: in 1980 and 15 years later in 1995. The people of Quebec were called upon to vote on whether they wished to continue to be part of this country. Twice, the majority said no to separation and yes to Canada. But—because there is always a but—there was also an understanding. It was not so much an understanding as a promise by the rest of the country to come up with an arrangement and a recognition of some sort. Some attempts were made, which unfortunately did not succeed.

Today the House is asked to consider a government motion recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. That is the reality of our country, and we must recognize that fact. We must also recognize that history progressively led us to this situation. We are simply recognizing a fact: Quebeckers form a nation within Canada.

Recognizing that fact will not take anything away from other citizens of this country.

That is the starting point.

I also want to mention something as an aside.

I do want this parenthesis addressed to you in particular, Mr. Speaker, because I find it also a bit awkward that the debate we are having and which has seized the entire nation--I am not trying to play with words--the debate which has seized the entire country, if we will, has come at us from a supply day of the supply cycle. This is a parenthesis that I will close rapidly, but I think that at one point we may be well advised to look at that process.

To have this kind of debate thrust on us in a rather surprising move and in a manner, I would argue, and I think most people would agree except my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, so as to trap the federalists, perhaps to embarrass the Liberals in this case, because we are having a convention next week and internally there has been this debate, I am not sure this is appropriate. I am not sure that this is an appropriate use of the supply cycle and an opposition day.

I think this kind of debate is so serious and so important that it necessitates preparation time. It necessitates reaching out to Canadians. It necessitates the ability to have this collective reflection that would then be brought to the House and voted upon.

Now we are caught in a situation in which some political games have caused the situation whereby the Prime Minister felt that he should do this. We support the Prime Minister in that move, because indeed, we cannot play silly politics with this kind of important debate that is fundamental for the future of our country.

I would hope that at some point, when the dust has settled on this, some of us in this House might actually be able to take a look at how far we can go and how flexible we can be in the supply cycle motions of opposition days, so that these kinds of debates are not thrust upon us as a surprise, as a political tactic, but rather in a manner that is respectful of the significance of the debate we are having today. I will close that parenthesis.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I want to talk about a situation that is obvious to me as a French Canadian from Ontario. I find myself taking part in a debate that can be heart-rending and very difficult sometimes. I used the term French Canadian and I respect the fact that this concept of a French Canadian nation offends my colleagues from the Bloc. They do not accept it, and I recognize that fact.

However, 50 years ago, a hundred years ago, that French Canadian nation did exist. Members will recall that in the 1960s, the States-General of the French Canadian nation led to a rupture. Today the French Canadian family includes the Franco-Saskatchewanians, the Franco-British Columbians, the Franco-People of the North, the Franco-New-Brunswickers or the Acadians—some even talk about the Acadian nation. There are also the Franco-Ontarians and the Quebeckers. They are all members of the family formerly known as French Canadian.

On a few occasions, I tested my colleagues to see if they identify with this notion. More often than not the answer was no. However, I have a feeling that it may be less shocking than it was in the past.

Having said that, I believe that, in this country, we have a Canadian francophonie. It is undeniable and all francophone Canadians identify with this Canadian francophonie. Whether they are Quebeckers, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans, from Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where they live, the francophones of this country identify with the Canadian francophonie.

I hope that we will be able to see clearly in this debate. I have some goods friends who have told me they are worried. One of them, Pierre Deblois, sent me an e-mail yesterday. He is worried about this motion before us. He is not convinced that it should be supported. I wish to reassure him: in this country there is a Canadian francophonie from coast to coast. There is no question about that. Where there are common ties, a willingness to do what is right and to improve the lot of all, there is a willingness to renew ties in this Canadian francophonie.

I was delighted when the Government of Quebec announced, a few days ago, that it wishes to step forward and play an important role in this Canadian francophonie. Unfortunately, that can only come from a federalist Quebec government. In fact, we have seen Mr. Charest stand up and take not only his rightful place but the one he must occupy, that Quebec must occupy in this Canadian francophonie. That also goes for New Brunswick, and we do not often speak about this.

Kudos to the province of New Brunswick and to Mr. Hatfield, the Conservative premier who, at the time, had the courage to make bilingualism official in New Brunswick and to declare that the province, the only one in the country, was officially bilingual. As a result, we can affirm that the Acadian society, that the New Brunswick francophonie and the Acadian nation are thriving.

In the years to come, when we have a Quebec nation within a unified Canada again, we will be able to forge again the ties within the Canadian Francophonie, so that francophones across Canada but outside Quebec do not feel as if they are part of a diaspora, but rather that they are part of one big family, and even, eventually, a nation.

I do not know if I will live long enough or be a member of Parliament long enough to rise in this House and vote in favour of a French Canadian nation one day. I would be delighted to do so. This represents an ideal, an objective I intend to continue dedicating myself to achieving as I have for many years. I have done so as the minister responsible for official languages and I plan to continue for as long as I have the privilege of representing the people of the riding of Ottawa—Vanier.

But right now, I will make another aside, this one about the government. I think that the government cannot sit on its laurels with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

Much remains to be done in this country to ensure that the French Canadian family that we now know as the Canadian Francophonie feels comfortable and completely at home anywhere in the country, and not only in Quebec. In Ontario and the other provinces, much remains to be done.

In 1969, under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, this Parliament approved the Official Languages Act. This brought about a turnaround and recovery in terms of making this francophone family, the Canadian Francophonie, feel comfortable in Canada. In 1988, the Mulroney government amended the legislation to strengthen it. In 2003, the Chrétien government introduced the official languages action plan, which gave effect to many initiatives requested by our communities. Last year, this Parliament passed a very significant amendment to the Official Languages Act. This amendment came from the Senate, more precisely from Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, who introduced, as members will recall, Bill S-3 to make an important part of the Official Languages Act enforceable. Next week, when this legislation goes into effect, all government agencies and departments will now have this obligation to act, under the Official Languages Act.

In my opinion, if we want to say that, eventually, we will recognize the French Canadian nation again, or the Canadian Francophonie from coast to coast, and that today we are talking about recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada, we cannot underestimate the importance of respecting Canada's linguistic duality.

I think this goes without saying. Any government, regardless of political stripe, partisanship or allegiance, must not only respect the Official Languages Act, but go beyond that and also respect the linguistic duality of Canada and of its two founding nations, just as we are currently making efforts to show better respect for the country's first nations, which are also founding nations.

What is Canada?

What have we been trying to do since the official start in 1867 and even before? We have been building a country that has become, and I hope will remain, the envy of the world. Canada is a country of diversity, of accommodating, but not of tolerance. No one wants to be just tolerated. That is not good enough. We want to be accepted and celebrated. The Canadian population of all the populations in the world is the one that celebrates diversity the most. We have a head start there.

As we all know, the world is shrinking in terms of our ability to communicate with each other instantaneously and our ability to move around. The human species had better begin preparing for some of the difficulties and the tensions we are now confronting.

We have built in this country, bit by bit, an edifice that is a bit of a beacon for the world, as the interim leader of the official opposition said in this House on Wednesday. It started with the two founding nations and the first nations. Over the successive decades, we have added to that. From Europe, we have had people coming from Italy, Poland and Ukraine. We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the arrival in Canada of 40,000 Hungarians who came to our country because of difficulties in their own country.

The same goes for the Vietnamese people. We may remember the early 1980s. Now we have people from South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East coming to join us, and for very obvious reasons. We are a beacon of peace and hope for them. These people come here hoping to give their children a better future and a better life. That is essentially how Canada has developed.

This has led us to basically to what we are becoming, which is a pluralistic society. In a pluralistic society, people must acknowledge and recognize that there are others who are different than we are and we must welcome them with open arms.

The source of this motion is to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. Apart for those people, as the Minister of Transport said, whose purpose in coming here is to cause the separation of our country, I do not think we will find much dissension in this House that we as members of the House of Commons have a duty to preserve our national unity.

The Prime Minister's motion works to that purpose. When it is adopted, I believe it will be a positive step toward preserving the unity of this country. In preserving the unity of this country we are helping the world.

This is not bravado. We are helping the world by being a good example of civility, of accommodation, of openness, of celebrating diversity and of recognizing that the wealth and the richness of humankind needs to be celebrated and embraced.

Whether they live in French or in English, people have come here from all over the world and are now in a country where human rights are respected.

Yesterday, I heard some Bloc Québécois members say that Quebec did not sign the Constitution. That is true, but the Constitution benefits Quebec, because all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere, benefit from the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All citizens, whether or not they come from the countries I mentioned, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, benefit from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We even used its amending formula to recognize linguistic school boards in Quebec. One can say that Quebec did not sign the Constitution, but it still uses it and benefits from it. We must put this situation in its proper perspective.

We would like to see this made official, and we would like to see the Quebec National Assembly eventually adhere to the Canadian Constitution. I think it will happen some day. In the meantime, we must continue to build our country.

I believe that the motion before the House today will work and will help us achieve that goal.

It has been a pleasure for me to address this motion. I believe I raised all the issues that I wanted to bring up in a debate of great interest to all Canadians. In conclusion, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Canadian Parents for French, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to highlight today the achievements of a dedicated and well respected Canadian, Mrs. Trudy Comeau, outgoing president of Canadian Parents for French.

Canadian Parents for French is a national network of 24,000 volunteers who value French and who are engaged in the promotion and creation of French second language learning opportunities for young Canadians.

Mrs. Comeau has been a member of CPF since 1993 when her daughter attended a CPF French immersion summer camp. During her tenure, she worked tirelessly with partner organizations, government agencies and professional associations. Her dedication was inspiring, particularly her two years as national president.

Her calm demeanour and her friendly and effective leadership have been most beneficial to Canadian Parents for French. On behalf of all of my colleagues, I wish to say an enormous thank you to Trudy.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 1936, Parliament created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio-Canada.

CBC/Radio-Canada, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary today, has become an integral part of Canada's social fabric.

CBC/Radio-Canada is composed of two national television networks; four national radio services; two cable news services; a northern service broadcasting in English, French and eight aboriginal languages; Radio-Canada International broadcasting in nine languages; CBC.ca and Radio-Canada.ca, visited by two million users monthly; and a number of other initiatives.

As all Canadians know, CBC/Radio-Canada is much more than the sum of its parts.

CBC/Radio-Canada reflects who we are; it is our source for information and entertainment and it is our social conscience.

I would like to thank the creators, artists, technicians, journalists, administrators and visionaries who continue to—

[Circle of Canadians, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, my colleagues, the members for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and Ottawa Centre, and I will co-chair the third annual Circle of Canadians benefit dinner. This year's proceeds will go to the Ottawa Food Bank and the Snowsuit Fund.

In addition to its generous support for charities, the Circle of Canadians celebrates cultural diversity. It brings together Canadians from every origin in the spirit of understanding, open-mindedness and respect.

As we know, benefit dinners do not happen by themselves. I, therefore, wish to pay tribute to the entire board of directors of the Circle of Canadians. I also wish to single out the constant devotion of its vice-president, Salma Siddiqui, whose ceaseless efforts have made this year's dinner a sold-out event. Ms. Siddiqui epitomizes the value of volunteerism and of responsible citizenship. I salute her and her fellow board members and look forward to a most pleasant and worthwhile evening this Wednesday.

[Government Programs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, program evaluations are to be public documents.

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage table in this House the museum assistance program evaluation that led her to conclude that the program was ineffective and wasteful and therefore to cut it instead of boosting it, as the Conservatives promised?

[Government Programs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, the Conservatives did not tell the truth. During that campaign, the Conservatives took a position toward the Canadian Museums Association by promising, and I quote: “—please be assured that funding for Canada’s arts and culture communities would be a priority for a Conservative government.” Instead, the Conservatives have cut $4.6 million from the museums assistance program.

Is this the Conservative idea of a new museum policy?