Daniel Petit

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to ask a question of my colleague about the motion before us for which the vote is deferred.

In the province of Quebec, as my colleague was saying, all these matters are covered in its Consumer Protection Act and contracts come under the Civil Code of Quebec. With a motion of this type, do we not run the risk, every time we mention consumer cases, of weakening Quebec's rights and laws? That is the approach used on occasion by the Liberal Party and the NDP, who are centralists, to weaken the rights of provinces. My colleague is correct in stating that laws already exist to protect consumers. They are laws that we voted for. We have a civil code.

Is my colleague prepared to reconsider how she will vote in order to protect Quebec laws and prevent the federal government from meddling in these laws?

[The Bloc Québécois, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has betrayed Quebec. Despite everything that party says, we have reason to wonder whether it really wants to fight gun crime in Quebec.

On Monday, the Bloc made another attempt to weaken Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), by suggesting that mandatory minimum sentences that could apply to drive-by shootings, among other things, be removed from the bill.

However, in a Bloc press release dated February 15, 2007, the member for Hochelaga said that the Criminal Code should be amended to give police forces the tools they need to fight street gangs. That is exactly what we are proposing with the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill.

While the Bloc spends its time telling Quebeckers anything it pleases, our government is putting honest citizens, justice and victims first in its governance bill.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who spoke very eloquently. He just said something that opened the door to this question that I have for him. He said that car registration, or any other motor vehicle, is a provincial jurisdiction, that boat registration is a provincial jurisdiction, that dog registration is a provincial jurisdiction. Firearms registration is also a provincial jurisdiction. Civil law is the responsibility of the provinces.

Could the member answer me without letting his emotions get in the way? I understand the motion put forward by the Bloc, but would he be willing to let it go because, since civil law is a provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution, should it not be tabled in the Quebec National Assembly instead, which could maintain a registry without any involvement on our part?

[Official Languages Act, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I know that you are a Franco-Columbian and I believe the debate in this House is very interesting.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This year, as we mark the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, it is important to note that, several decades ago, the Government of Canada established a linguistic framework based on the rights of French and English. Respect is the basis for our policy: respect for our two official languages and respect for the groups and the individuals who speak those two languages.

Canada defines itself as a country that values pluralism and where French and English have the status of official languages. Language rights are defined in our constitutional texts and in the Official Languages Act, and the most recent amendments made to that act in 2005 have strengthened those rights.

I want to assure this House that our government is firmly committed to meeting its obligations to support the official languages and promote French and English, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada. This important commitment underscores the key role of the Government of Canada in this area, a role that is understood and supported by the majority of Quebeckers. According to a poll conducted by Decima Research, 2006, Attitudes and Perceptions towards Canada's Official Languages, 84% believe that linguistic duality is a source of cultural enrichment and 87% believe that the Government of Canada has an important role to play in promoting and protecting the status and use of French within Canadian society.

Our government takes that duality—both the francophone reality of Quebec and the fact of francophone minorities across the country—into consideration in all its actions. As a result of the 2005 amendment to the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada is even more committed to promoting the vitality of official language minorities and full recognition of French and English in Canadian society. We honour that commitment by providing unequivocal support for promoting French throughout the country, and particularly in Quebec.

I would like to take a moment to outline the linguistic framework put in place in recent decades. July 9, 2009 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first Official Languages Act passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1969. This act came out of the recommendations in the report by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

This act laid the groundwork for protecting and enhancing linguistic duality in Canada by recognizing French and English as the official languages of all federal institutions in Canada and giving them equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada. The Official Languages Act also created the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, whose job it is to oversee the implementation of the act, receive and investigate public complaints, conduct independent studies and report to Parliament.

This act would lead to the enshrinement of language rights in the Constitution with the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

[Official Languages Act, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the sponsor of Bill C-307 now before us a very technical question.

We have a Commissioner of Official Languages. If the bill were adopted—no matter its merits or its timing—that would mean that the Commissioner of Official Languages could promote the official languages in the nine other provinces and territories, but not in Quebec. At present, he looks after Quebec.

Have I understood correctly that, consistent with the purpose of this bill, the Commissioner of Official Languages would no longer be able to work in Quebec because only the Charter of the French Language would apply to federal jurisdictions?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I understand that she has great compassion and sympathy for young people, and that is also the case for us, whatever they may think. I would like to ask the following question.

There is now a court that deals with drug addiction. The court is established in the antidrug legislation and is involved with treatment for drug addiction. There are drug courts in Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. Since Bloc members always say that they represent the interests of Quebec, I would like to know why there are no such courts in Montreal or Quebec City. Can she explain that to me? From the outset, these courts have been there to protect young people, to help them get off drugs and to provide them with assistance because it is clearly not in their interests to send them to prison. Since they often say that they represent the Quebec National Assembly, why do these courts not exist in Quebec?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague, who was my old justice minister in Quebec. He did a lot to fight organized crime. I want to tell all of Canada: of all our ministers, he was the one who did the most to fight organized crime. He always told us the law must be enforced. He enforced it in the province of Quebec, and he got results too.

That is why I am following in his footsteps and we are actually going to enforce the law. That is what Canadians want of us, including in Quebec.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, through you, for her question. I want to point out that she said something that is very important, actually, and that is that drug consumption has increased in the United States.

We are the Americans’ largest neighbour and we know that they like to blame us for having a porous border that allows lots of drugs to flow in from the United States for our young people to consume. Street gangs, the mafia—whatever people call it in any of our big cities—control the trade and make billions of dollars. They are expanding their activities and attacking our families and children with all they have.

We are here today because the people of Vancouver came to see us and asked us to act, and that is what we are going to do.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for those questions. I have a question for him.

There is currently a gang war going on in his province. There have been 38 deaths, 18 caused by firearms. The war is over the drug trade and has been going on for 25 or 30 years.

People from British Columbia, from the chamber of commerce, came to beg us to make strict laws. They are the ones who came, not the police. It was not the member from British Columbia who came, it was representatives of the Vancouver chamber of commerce. They made the trip and came to see us. For an hour, they told us they had had enough, that things were not working anymore and that we had to help them. That is what we are going to do. We are going to help them, and we are going to help the people in Vancouver and all the big cities.

I ask my colleague to support us as this bill goes through the various stages. His constituents' lives depend on it. We are entitled to one thing, and that is to have our lives respected and protected.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. In fact, I am still a member of the Barreau, which is a corporation that represents its members and must allow them to think for themselves. So I cannot answer her question, as I have freedom of thought.