Mauril Bélanger

[Official Languages, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, this report was tabled last week. We have innovated by including in this mid-term report the feedback and assessment of the communities themselves. We will see that, on the whole, the reaction was positive, especially in the areas of early childhood, health and justice, among others.

Now that the structures and mechanisms that needed to be developed to implement the plan are in place, we can expect that, for years 3, 4 and 5, accelerated investments will be made, as planned, to ensure that all the objectives in the plan are met by 2008.

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, November 3rd, 2005]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[Official Languages Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, repeating allegations, suppositions and innuendo does not make it fact. Again, I would invite the member to be more careful in his approach of treating other members of the House, from whatever party they may be, or ministers of the government. It behooves us all to rise above petty partisanship.

There is no conflict here. The minister followed the advice given to him by the independent Ethics Commissioner to the letter. The Ethics Commissioner has a role to play. The minister followed his advice and divested himself of any and all interest he may have had, therefore ending any possibility of conflict.

To keep supposing that there is conflict is irresponsible, not to use that other word. I would really invite the member opposite to--

[Official Languages Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has been making are essentially ridiculous. I am rather surprised that he is at it again. He has asked questions during question period on this twice and I gave precise answers on behalf of the government.

The Minister of State for Multiculturalism has acted in an open, transparent and most appropriate manner. As I said during question period, I indicated that the minister upon being invited by the Prime Minister to join the cabinet, did as all ministers do, consulted the Ethics Commissioner within the timeframes allowed to seek advice.

The advice given was that the minister dispose of the shares that he may have had in the school in China. In December 2004, within the timelines that ministers had to settle their affairs in order to comply with the guidelines, the minister did exactly what was suggested of him.

By the time the trip to China occurred, the trip to which the member across refers, he had fully divested himself of the shares and, therefore, of any interest in this company.

We have a minister who did exactly what the Ethics Commissioner suggested he do. The member essentially is complaining that the minister followed the law. He followed the advice given to him by the Ethics Commissioner.

It is not good enough it seems for the member opposite. He keeps casting about innuendoes and suppositions of profiteering and so forth. I am rather surprised at the member because he has never, as far as I can recall, engaged in that kind of tactics before. I do not know what has become of him, for him to engage in this kind of behaviour.

We have a situation that is clear-cut. The minister was invited into cabinet and he sought advice from an independent Ethics Commissioner. Incidentally, it is rather ironic that the member who makes these allegations is on the record as having supported the establishment of an independent ethics commissioner. Now that we have one and the minister has followed the advice of the independent Ethics Commissioner, exactly as was suggested and did what he was told to do, it is still not good enough.

I find this rather bothersome that we in the House would engage in this kind of behaviour. We have codes that were followed and adhered to, and the advice given was followed. There is no conflict because the minister divested himself of all his interests. Yet a member goes about pointing the finger and saying that there is a conflict. They are created when they do not exist. I am really disappointed with the member for pursuing this line. I thought he had managed to rise above that, but obviously I was wrong.

I am sorry that the member persists in trying to slur the reputation of hon. members of the House. That is not a behaviour that I would encourage him to continue, especially when the facts are clear.

We have a situation where a minister sought advice, advice was provided, advice was followed and acted upon in due course, as per all the codes that exist. There is no conflict, yet the member across the way keeps trying to paint the picture of a minister in conflict of interest, when the truth and facts paint the exact opposite picture.

I would invite the member across to cease and desist these tactics that are beneath his reputation.

[Official Languages, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak in my capacity as the Minister responsible for Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report entitled “Review of the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages”, a mid-term report.

I also wish to table its companion document entitled “Canada's Linguistic Duality: A Framework to Manage the Official Languages Program”.

I wish to thank my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Saint Boniface, as well as the entire staff at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and at the Privy Council for the excellent work they have done.

[Government Contracts, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this matter is now before the Ethics Commissioner, as members well know. The member for Pontiac has committed to making the results of whatever the commissioner says public. I would hope that members opposite would wait for a response from the Ethics Commissioner before commenting further.

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-37, as amended, be concurred in with further amendment and read the second time.

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite has acknowledged that the reference to committees before second reading of legislation, of which the government has made a practice, is working.