Mauril Bélanger

[Government Programs, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, those who know the Liberal Party know that it has never spared any effort to promote linguistic duality. And if Ottawa's francophone community has its own hospital today, it is naturally because of the community's own efforts, but also thanks to the court challenges program that the Conservative government has axed for the second time. In fact, the current federal cabinet includes several ministers who were part of the Harris government that tried to close the Montfort Hospital.

Is that why they are so small-minded and so intent on targeting minorities?

[Canadian Heritage, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what it has delivered is a cut of 25% to the museum program.

In reaction to the decision to cut the museums assistance program, John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, said, “We are shocked, puzzled and feel betrayed by these cuts”.

What is the government waiting for in order to reverse its decision and even increase funding for the museums assistance program?

[Canadian Heritage, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the last general election, the Conservatives made the following promise in writing to the Canadian Museums Association, “Please be assured that generous funding for Canada's museums will be a priority for a Conservative government”.

My question is rather straightforward. Why did the minority Conservative government break its promise?

[Access to Information, September 22nd, 2006]

That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The previous government did not ask for the names of those making requests for information.

Since we have learned staff in the Prime Minister's Office have committed serious breaches of the Privacy Act regarding access to information, the so-called new government has tried to lay the blame at the feet of public servants or the preceding government, its new mantra. We now know it was quite the contrary. When invited by public servants to stop their practice, the Prime Minister's staff instead asked that it be enhanced.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister can bully us all he wants, we will fight back. The problem is the growing tendency of--

[Access to Information, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the Prime Minister's staff committed serious breaches of the Privacy Act. Since then, the minority government, through the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, has tried to shift the blame to public servants and the previous government. We now know that the contrary is true, that when asked by public servants to end this practice, the Prime Minister's staff wanted to enhance it.

When will this so-called new government drop its new tendency of trying to intimidate public servants to get them to act in a partisan way?

[Point of Order, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is exquisitely ironic that when the government was in opposition, it often criticized the Ethics Commissioner. Now, the government seems to want to hide behind the Ethics Commissioner.

In response to one of the many questions he was asked, the President of the Treasury Board quoted a letter from the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Shapiro. In my opinion, the Standing Orders are very clear: when a minister quotes a document in response to a question, he or she must table that document. I therefore invite the President of the Treasury Board to table the letter he quoted today.

[Immigration, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the work that the official opposition has done on the environment, protection of aboriginal communities and protection of Canadian art and culture.

With respect to immigration, it is important to remember that it was our government that welcomed nearly 3 million new arrivals between 1993 and 2005, citizens who are a definite asset to the country.

I would like to say a word about one of those new arrivals, Mrs. Maoua Diomande, who was forced to seek refuge in a church sanctuary in June 2005. A happy end to her story was announced yesterday, and Maoua received her freedom.

I applaud and thank the entire community of Ottawa—Vanier, and particularly Sandy Hill, for their unfailing support of Maoua. Lastly and belatedly, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say to Maoua: welcome to Canada.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present in the House, in both official languages, the report of the parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the fifth ordinary session of the Pan-African Parliament in Midrand, South Africa on May 1 and 2.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this government promised the opposite during the election campaign.

The Information Commissioner said on more than one occasion that he wanted certain things done. The government across the floor, that is, the Conservative government, promised to do them, but it is not. We might ask ourselves certain questions. That is what the commissioner is doing.

What is disappointing about this debate is the NDP's position. I must admit, they put up a good fight to improve access to information. The result was capitulation. They capitulated and say that they achieved some amendments. These few trivial amendments essentially allowed them to save face. The bill, in relation to access to information, is the opposite of what it should be, even with NDP support.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once we have discussed it, the hon. member will not question my good faith.

That is not the issue. I am now a member of the official opposition. My role is to oppose what the government proposes, as constructively as possible. I must question, go beyond what is being presented, see if there are any contradictions and see if there are better, more effective ways of doing things.

First, the bill before us is an omnibus bill. That in and of itself should have rung a bell. For the past 30 or 40 years opinions have been expressed in this House on omnibus bills and their nature. I get the feeling that some of these opinions have not changed.

There are artificial delays. There is absolutely no reason, expect for the government's desire to say all summer long that it did this or that, to do this now. Given the complexity of this bill—a complexity the members opposite themselves have acknowledged—we should have taken the time needed to do this right. Instead, the committee sat from dawn to dusk for two weeks and worked for six weeks. That is what I am opposed to. I am somewhat opposed to the content, but also to how we arrived at it. Again, I hope the other place will take the time it needs to come up with a better product than we are coming up with tonight.