Daniel Petit

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I listened attentively to my colleague from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to ask him the following question.

First, in the last session, his party voted against what is called the violent crime bill. Second, that party voted against the drug trafficking bill. That party voted against the human trafficking bill. I have not been here long, about three and a half years, and every time, systematically and on every occasion, I agree with him here, the Bloc always works for the criminals. It never works for the victims when criminals have some right.

I would like to know why he is still voting against this bill today and why he has advised his party to still be against this bill, a law that is needed for the protection of the public.

[June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as I just said, the government has implemented a number of concrete measures to decrease the supply of and demand for illicit drugs. The government has always been determined to increase the health and safety of communities.

Canada's national anti-drug strategy supports, in the three priority areas—prevention, treatment and law enforcement—steps set out in the political declaration and action plan. The strategy is a concrete measure to reduce the supply of and demand for illicit drugs.

The Government of Canada has added $30 million over five years to funding for the prevention action plan and more than $100 million over five years to funding for the treatment action plan. This money will solidify current prevention efforts and promote collaboration between governments and support organizations in order to improve access to drug treatment services.

[June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is very pleased to receive the political declaration and action plan adopted by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its meetings in Vienna. One hundred and thirty governments, with the solid backing of Canada, defined the future of anti-drug trafficking strategies which are compatible with Canada's national anti-drug strategy.

The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the policy-setting body of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in drug-control matters, adopted the draft political declaration and action plan on the future of drug control at the conclusion of its high-level segment this past March 11 and 12.

The governments, including Canada's, reviewed the progress in drug control since the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on drugs in 1998 and agreed on further steps to reduce the threat posed by drugs to health and security. The political declaration recognizes that countries have a shared responsibility for solving the world drugs problem, that a balanced and comprehensive approach is called for, and that human rights need to be recognized.

Governments also approved an action plan proposing 30 remedies to problems in the areas of concern, namely: reducing drug abuse and dependence; reducing the illicit supply of drugs; control of precursors and of amphetamine-type stimulants; international cooperation to eradicate the illicit cultivation of crops and to provide alternative development; countering money-laundering; and juridical cooperation.

The action plan places considerable emphasis on scientific evidence to support interventions; mainstreaming drug treatment and rehabilitation into national healthcare systems; and ensuring accessibility to drug demand reduction services.

The action plan addresses, for example, new trafficking trends and calls for greater exchange of intelligence, better monitoring of the impact of cyber-technology and effective data gathering. It also supports drug control and alternative development approaches as part of measures to alleviate poverty and promote sustainable development.

The Government of Canada feels that the declaration will be a valuable tool to spur national efforts the world over and to strengthen international cooperation. It will help Canada achieve the objectives of Canada's national anti-drug strategy.

The government recognizes that illegal drugs threaten the health of families and the safety of communities, feed organized crime and lead to the commission of minor offences.

On October 4, 2007, our Prime Minister announced Canada's new national anti-drug strategy, which provides a focused approach based on three action plans to reduce the supply of and demand for illicit drugs and to fight crime associated with these drugs. It will also improve the safety and health of communities through measures taken in three priority areas: prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

The strategy represents a focused approach that deals harshly with criminals and compassionately with drug users.

Through the national anti-drug strategy, the Government of Canada has implemented concrete measures to reduce supply and demand with respect to illicit drugs in accordance with the United Nations political declaration and action plan.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader's fiscal agenda is clear: he wants to raise taxes. He himself has admitted that he will have to raise taxes.

We would like to remind him once again that Canadians do not want tax hikes. It is clear that the Liberal leader is gradually falling into his party's bad habits. It is also clear that people across the country do not want to go backward.

Fortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has an alternate plan. He told us that if he were not elected, he thought he would ask Harvard University to take him back.

He seems to have his heart set on returning to Harvard. He can rest easy: more than ever, our government is committed to fighting these tax hikes and his centralist fervour and giving Harvard University a gift.

[Official Languages Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to continue the speech I started last March 31 on Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

A new Official Languages Act came into force in 1988 to reflect and implement the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The 1988 act reflected three major objectives of the Government of Canada. The government wanted to ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and also ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in federal institutions. The legislation reflected a desire to support the development of minority francophone and anglophone communities and foster progress toward the equal status and use of both English and French in Canadian society. It also specified the powers, obligations and roles of federal institutions in regard to the official languages.

This new law contained provisions as well in part VII on the promotion of English and French, which were strengthened by an amendment in 2005. This amendment reminded federal institutions of their responsibility to take positive action to support the development of official language communities and promote the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society. It is also very important that part VII of the act can now be used to take legal action before the appropriate authorities.

I want to remind the House that our caucus was unanimously in favour of this change. That helped the amendment enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and supporting their development to pass. These changes to the law strengthened Canada’s linguistic legislation. We were motivated then, and still are, by our conviction that federal institutions should assume their responsibilities and lead the way when it comes to promoting our official languages and linguistic duality throughout the country.

This description of the milestones in the recognition of French over the last few decades helps to show that a consensus exists in Canada on the official languages. Linguistic duality is an essential part of the Canadian identity and a tremendous benefit for all of society. Our government is very much in favour of this linguistic regime.

The provisions relating to linguistic duality do not contradict the charter of the French language, as some say. The charter of the French language applies fully in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

As regards the language used by the public, it is generally French in the province of Quebec and on the island of Montreal. In all, 94.5% of the population of Quebec know French. It is also in this province that anglophones have the greatest mastery of French, with 69% of them speaking it. Of the allophones, 50% speak both French and English along with another language. We may readily suppose that they use French regularly.

In our global economy and in a difficult economic climate, it is agreed that knowledge of a number of languages is an advantage. For individuals, it means enrichment, opening the door to whole cultural worlds. The ability to speak a number of languages also means greater employment opportunities, a benefit recognized by parents in Quebec, over 80% of whom want their children to learn at least the other official language, if not a third language.

Our government remains firmly committed to promoting and supporting the economic and social benefits our linguistic duality represents. Our government reiterated this support when it announced the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future in June 2008. The roadmap consolidates, adapts and modernizes the government's actions with respect to official languages in order to ensure they produce real results.

Of course, Canadians and their government have come a considerable way in recent decades. Our government wants to focus on the considerable successes and progress in linguistic duality in order to take advantage of the growing mobilization of all players.

The roadmap defines the Government of Canada's comprehensive approach in official languages, while outlining our objectives and strategies. There were originally thirteen federal departments and agencies involved.

Since then, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has joined the group in order to meet the needs of communities in the territories. So now there are 14 departments working to implement the roadmap and our investment of $1.1 billion.

We want as many Canadians as possible to have the opportunity to appreciate the French language and culture, an essential component of our country's character and identity. Major investments are made annually to this end.

By way of example, our government recently announced the details of the national translation program for book publishing. This program will help Canadian publishers translate Canadian-authored books into English and French. With this program, we want to give as many Canadians as possible access to the enormous wealth of our country's culture and literature.

The Official Languages Act celebrates 40 years this year. This anniversary is a real landmark in our history, since the Official Languages Act was an excellent initiative to affirm the rights of Canadians and give them new opportunities. This enshrined linguistic duality is now at the heart of Canada's identity.

Let us then use this 40th anniversary to make Canadians aware of the benefits of having two world-class official languages and make sure that this linguistic duality is a source of pride throughout the country.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her fine speech to the House. I would like to make a brief comment and then ask her a question.

For 20 years, we have waged war on smoking because it is bad for people's health. A great deal of legislation has been passed in various provinces. People can be fined for smoking in public places. In New Brunswick, it is illegal to smoke in a car in which there are young children.

Even though a law may be coercive, the amendments proposed in Bill C-15 will not just put traffickers in prison. They will also send a signal to young people in particular that smoking marijuana is harmful. It creates dependence and can be hazardous to health.

I ask my colleague whether it would not be useful to conduct exactly the same advertising campaign to prevent young people from smoking marijuana sold by traffickers?

[Families, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Quebec is celebrating family week. Quebeckers and Canadians alike value families.

Our government recognizes the importance of families. That is why we are helping parents by giving them $100 per month for every child under the age of six and by giving them tax credits for such things as school supplies, physical activity and the arts.

Recently, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul offered parents a bill to protect our children from sexual predators by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence. Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat members of Parliament all rose above partisan politics to vote in favour of this bill to protect our children, who are, after all, our future.

Unfortunately, for its own low-minded, ideological reasons, the Bloc voted against protecting our children. And they say that they are the only ones defending Quebec values.

The Bloc's behaviour is shameful.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

I know that this issue is very important to him, and he is a fine Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Seeing as our government practises open federalism, did my colleague consult with the Government of Quebec when this bill was being drafted? Did he hold consultations with the Government of Quebec throughout the drafting process?

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member opposite's diatribe about how we should negotiate in good faith with respect to Quebec harmonizing the QST and the GST, I would like to know something.

On April 22, a bill was introduced to protect our children in Quebec and Canada against criminals seeking to abuse, exploit, hold and even sexually assault them. His is the only party in this House that voted against children, with the exception of one person.

He is calling for good faith. I am asking him to tell us why he voted against legislation to protect our children. Even today, he will not admit it. This has been going on for one week. They will not budge. They have voted against the children of Quebec and are allowing sexual assault by not doing anything to prevent it. There is no harmonizing involved and it is free.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.

In its motion on sales tax harmonization, the Bloc Québécois says that we are acting in bad faith. I think the Bloc members should know there is a rule that applies to everybody: According to our Civil Code, good faith is presumed. Bloc members cannot even apply the Civil Code that exists for all citizens.

This is my question to my colleague. How much money has Quebec received since the so-called harmonization of the GST and the QST? How much money did the Quebec government get in the past 10 years? Does he know the answer?