Mauril Bélanger

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament chosen by all parties in this House. It is up to the Ethics Commissioner to interpret and abide by the statutory mandate as it is set out in the Parliament of Canada Act. The act is clear that, before releasing a report into allegations made against the member, the Ethics Commissioner is obliged to give that member an opportunity to present his or her views. How the Ethics Commissioner fulfills this legal obligation is at his discretion.

The Ethics Commissioner appeared before the committee yesterday and took the valid concerns expressed by the members of that committee under advisement. I do not believe this is a matter of privilege because the Ethics Commissioner has already indicated that he will take the advice--

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, again in the spirit of trying to encourage greater civility and carefulness in the use of language, I would perhaps invite the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills to be careful in terms of accusing members of the cabinet of misleading the House, which was a statement contained in his question.

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation and in trying to be helpful, I would refer to the Speaker that not so long ago in a session in the House, the Speaker ruled a question from the member for Nepean—Carleton on the same topic out of order. The Speaker may wish to refer to that ruling and when it was done in order to not allow such questions in the House.

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner said “if there are any clouds”. I believe the hon. member opposite would do very well to follow this matter.

Judgments cannot be made based on recordings that have been altered. That is recognized now. They were reduced in length from four hours to two hours. I therefore think that the Ethics Commissioner, this House's independent officer, should be permitted to decide for himself, as he is empowered and is intending to do.

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Ethics Commissioner is an officer of the House. He is completely independent. He is chosen by all parties in this House. He alone will decide on this matter, since it has been brought to his attention, I believe.

Second, the commissioner himself acknowledged that Mr. Murphy had not spoken to him on this matter.

Third, when tapes that have been altered, reduced from four hours to two hours in length, are used as evidence, considerable caution must be exercised in making statements of the type made by the member opposite.

[Office of the Prime Minister, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament, chosen by all parties of this House. He himself will make his own determination in this matter.

He also said that he had not been approached by Mr. Murphy.

If any member has any information, such as the two hours of missing tapes, apparently, that can be provided to the Ethics Commissioner, we would ask the members opposite to do so.

[Democratic Reform, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very serious about this file. However, we cannot second-guess what a committee will recommend or decide, and we are not about to do that.

While the government is waiting for that committee's report and recommendation, we have been conducting diagnostics to get to the root causes of the challenges that our democratic system and institutions face.

We will be ready to act according to the recommendations that we will receive from the committee and ensure that Canadians are fully engaged in the process that looks at democratic renewal and electoral reform.

[Democratic Reform, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be disappointed that I am still answering his question. However, given the results of the referendum in British Columbia this week, it is quite obvious that in that province at least there is a thirst for some change. This goes quite well with what the government is trying to do.

As members will recall, last fall, through a unanimous vote in the House, members assigned a task to a committee to suggest a way of consulting Canadians on democratic renewal and electoral reform. We are awaiting eagerly the report of that committee. In the meantime, the government has been preparing, so that we can move forward--

[Official Languages, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3 would make part VII of the Official Languages Act justiciable. The government is in favour of this objective, with some amendments in order to better delineate the scope of the bill.

The question is quite simple. I am being asked whether the government is prepared to speed up consideration of this bill. The government would welcome the unanimous support of the opposition parties to proceed more quickly with consideration and passage of this bill.

[Democratic Reform, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, all the members of this House unanimously asked a committee to propose a way of consulting Canadians on democratic reform and electoral reform. We are waiting for the committee's report.

In the meantime, the government has not stopped dealing with this issue. We have conducted an overview of the situation and consulted Canadians in many ways. Once we receive the committee report, the government will reveal its action plan in due time.