Daniel Petit

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which raises the following question.

He said that in past years, his party has always been concerned about human rights. I would like to review a little history to remind him about something because I was not in the House at the time.

In 1981, your party repatriated the Constitution without Quebec's approval. What happened to human rights? A few years later, your party torpedoed the Meech Lake accord. What happened to human rights then? Recently, your party refused to recognize my nation. What happened to human rights then?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for raising the issue of the unemployed, which is an issue that we all care about, including us, government members.

However, there is one thing I would like to know. The member for Chambly—Borduas did say that the Conservative member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean was elected because he spoke about logging companies during the election campaign. Why is it that the Bloc Québécois candidate in that same riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean did not condemn Greenpeace, which scuttled the ship that was transporting lumber to Europe, since this was jeopardizing the sale of that lumber?

I am putting my question to the member who talks a lot about the unemployed. Is he prepared, personally or as his party's critic on unemployment, to condemn Greenpeace, which is currently campaigning against logging companies, considering that our own member was elected to solve this issue? Is he prepared to condemn his Greenpeace allies? That is my question.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague opposite, who prides himself so much on his democratic principles.

I would like to talk about the province of Quebec, where I am from. For 40 years, the Liberals failed to recognize our rightful position, by virtue of our culture, within UNESCO. During the 40 years in which they were in power, they could not even recognize Quebec as a nation. However, during that same 40 years, they were able to invoke the War Measures Act. Now, that is serious.

I have a question for you here today. Since we are talking about democracy, are you willing to recognize an elected Senate, with senators elected for eight years?

[Justice, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, an article published in the newspaper La Presse revealed that, of the 342 criminal groups identified by Quebec police forces, 57 street gangs work exclusively in Montreal and, of these, about 20 are considered major players.

The chief of the Montreal police force also stated that the mafia, bikers and gangs are working together to an increasing extent.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us what our government is doing to fight organized crime and street gangs in order to make our streets safer?

[Budget 2007 Implementation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not recognize the fiscal imbalance, and now they are voting against Bill C-52.

The bill is now before the Senate, which is comprised of a majority of unelected Liberal senators. If the bill is blocked by the Liberals in the Senate, it will result in the loss of more than $4 billion in tax breaks and funding for programs to the end of the 2006 fiscal year, including more than $1 billion to help provinces reduce patient wait times and $1.5 billion for provincial environmental initiatives in support of projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Leader of the Liberal Party should show a bit more leadership by urging irresponsible Liberal senators to make the interests of Canadians their priority, to respect the will of the House of Commons and to vote for bill C-52.

[Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians, we are sometimes rewarded with moments of profound satisfaction, and today is one of them.

With the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement—the last Inuit land claim settlement in the country—we have now come full circle. The Inuit of Nunavik will once again become the owners of a group of islands totaling 5,100 square kilometres located north of the 53rd parallel.

In Inuktitut, Nunavik means “place to live". From now on, 10,000 Inuit living in 15 communities scattered along the Ungava Bay and the east coast of the Hudson Bay will own the land they have been using for over 4,000 years.

This agreement was overwhelmingly supported by the Inuit of Nunavik. Indeed, some 78% of the eligible beneficiaries and 90% of everyone who voted supported the agreement. Such strong support is an excellent indication of the commitment of the Inuit people of Nunavik and just how important the agreement is to them.

I would also like to point out the measures set out in the agreement to protect the traditions that have ensured the survival of the Inuit culture. With the new act, the Inuit of Nunavik will have the right to harvest wildlife on the lands covered by the agreement, in order to meet their economic, social and cultural needs.

Thanks to this bill, and to the agreement at its foundation, the Inuit of Nunavik will own the surface rights and subsoil rights in fee simple. The islands belong to them without question.

These claims were particularly complex because of the overlap in the Nunavut land claims, the offshore land claims of the Crees of Quebec and the land claims of the Inuit of Labrador. It was impossible to settle the claims of the Inuit of Nunavik without first putting some order into these issues. It was essential to achieve the desired agreements to clarify the ownership rights on the land and the resources.

Here is an example. The Inuit of Nunavik and the Crees of James Bay had created three adjacent zones along the coast of Hudson Bay and James Bay.

To the north, was the Inuit zone, where the Crees of Quebec are permitted to harvest wildlife resources. The common zone is shared by the two groups. Finally, the southernmost zone will be the exclusive property of the Crees of Quebec, but the Inuit will be allowed to harvest wildlife resources in that zone.

In case of any disputes, the regulations provide for a resolution mechanism based on arbitration.

In addition to clarifying the territory belonging to the parties, this final agreement provides greater certainty about the future of the region.

It is in the interest of all parties to establish certainty regarding the use and ownership of the land and the resources. The certainty consists in replacing ambiguous ancestral rights with rights that are very precisely defined in the agreement. Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982 expressly grants the same protection to ancestral rights as to rights flowing from a treaty.

The benefits of obtaining certainty are clearly illustrated in another important point of the agreement: the creation of a new Canadian national park.

The Torngat Mountains National Park is a magnificent park of about 9,700 square kilometres with some of the most marvellous landscapes in Canada. It extends from Saglek Fiord in the south up to the northernmost point of Labrador, and from the border with Quebec on the west, to the Labrador Sea on the east.

The park protects a spectacular, untouched arctic area that is home to numerous archaeological sites and wildlife resources of great interest to Canadian historians.

Under the agreement, the Government of Canada will pay about $94 million over 10 years to the Inuit of Nunavik, who will invest those funds for their future. This amount includes the transfer of $54.8 million to the trust fund of the Inuit of Nunavik. The money will be distributed to some 10,000 Inuit of Nunavik, individually and collectively, to meet their educational, social, cultural and socio-economic needs. The great success of the Makivik Corporation shows that the settlement of land claims leads to the creation of businesses, jobs and new national and international markets, which strengthens the ability of First Nations and Inuit communities to meet the needs of their members.

That translates into a better quality of life for Aboriginal people, which is precisely the objective that we had set out to achieve. To guarantee that the economic development generated by this agreement procures sustainable benefits to the Inuit of Nunavik, the regulations provide for creation of several institutions public government. The Makivik Corporation will have legal authority to nominate 50% of the members of those institutions. For the first time, the Inuit of Nunavik will exercise real decision-making powers and be able to act decisively in the review processes that govern development of the region.

For example, the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board will be responsible for wildlife management and conservation. It will conduct research, monitor the allowable take, including the Nunavik Inuit share, and set quotas as needed.

For its part, the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission will establish policies, objectives and goals to be used in managing the Nunavik Marine Region together with the federal and territorial governments. The Commission will also create land use plans for the development and exploitation of resources in the marine region.

Among other things, the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission will be responsible for assessing impacts, and will pre-select proposals for assessment. It will assess the impacts of proposed projects and monitor their progress.

As with all other land claims agreements, people will wonder which act takes precedence. I want to be very clear: all general federal, territorial and local legislation applies to the Inuit of Nunavik on the Inuit of Nunavik lands. Should incompatibility or conflict arise between these acts and the agreement, the agreement takes precedence, but only in cases of incompatibility or conflict.

It is clear that this final agreement, which has been so carefully drafted, seeks to strike a balance between the past and the creation of a better future for the Inuit of Nunavik.

This agreement is beneficial to all parties. We should celebrate this final step, which is a major achievement, and highlight its benefits for all Canadians. I therefore wish to reaffirm my support for this important bill.

[National Blood Donor Week Act, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and deeply honoured to have the opportunity to express my gratitude to all the donors who contribute every year to the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, through this simple yet generous act of giving blood. What hope would remain for so many sick and injured people, and their loved ones, without these donors? It is time for the House to declare the second week of June “National Blood Donor Week”.

We Canadians are very lucky. Our blood transfusion system is one of the safest in the world. We owe this safety to the efforts made by professionals and volunteers alike and, above all, to the fact that giving blood in Canada is a completely voluntary act. Fewer than 25% of countries can say the same thing.

I have no doubt that Canadians are fully aware that giving blood means giving life, and that they understand the importance of this simple act. That is what they would say if they were asked. But we do not necessarily find ways to express this gratitude and understanding in our daily lives. Like so many good things, giving blood is a simple reality that is often taken for granted.

We need to be aware of how fortunate we are as Canadians. We should not assume that donors know their generosity is appreciated. We cannot take our voluntary donation system or its sustainability for granted. We must continue promoting blood donation as a positive gesture and encourage Canadians who can to roll up their sleeves. That is why Canada, as a nation, must take action, express its appreciation for our blood system and thank the people who run it.

To recognize donors and encourage other people to become donors, the House must adopt Bill S-214. Canada's Parliament must show its support for this country's donors and recipients, as well as for the other levels of government that have made the second week of June national blood donor week. In doing this as a nation, we are joining with cities like Kingston, Ontario, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Bay Roberts, Newfoundland and Labrador, which declared at different times that the second week of June would be blood donor week.

This week has been celebrated in communities across Canada since 2005, and there is no reason this House should wait any longer before adopting Bill S-214. As I said earlier, Canadians are extremely fortunate, but human nature being what it is, we sometimes take our good fortune for granted. To help raise awareness of just how fortunate we are, I would like to share some thoughts about blood systems in other countries where blood donation is not entirely voluntary.

Imagine a system where blood is bought and sold. That is the sort of system that most people in the world have to deal with. The sad reality is that if people are forced by economic circumstances to sell their blood, they will be far more likely to keep quiet about aspects of their medical history. Canadians are fortunate that people here voluntarily roll up their sleeves to share the gift of life.

Now imagine a system where a family member who receives blood creates an obligation to replace that blood. Many developed countries have this sort of system. If a person needs several transfusions or transfusions for life, that could place a very heavy burden on that person's family.

Canadians are lucky to have volunteer donors and a system that does not have such obligations. To see a family member with a problem requiring a transfusion can prompt a person to donate blood, which is a very generous thing to do.

Some areas of world are trying to implement a system that is completely voluntary and coordinated on a national level. They are making progress, but despite their system and the progress they have made, they still have to rely on paid and mandatory donations.

Even with a donation rate of slightly less than 5%, or the percentage required to meet our needs, our system works, promotes sharing and will never need to resort to paid or mandatory donations. We should celebrate this system and the volunteer donors to whom we owe its existence by designating the second week of June national blood donor week.

People who give blood in Canada, like other volunteers, are motivated by the desire to help their peers. This celebration in honour of those who give blood voluntarily also celebrates Canadian communities. How many Canadians would have to worry about blood if they needed a transfusion in this country? Very few. Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec submit all donations to essential tests. Canadians have trust in this system.

Now imagine a system that combines voluntary, paid and mandatory donations. What would happen to that trust? In my opinion, it would be broken or seriously shaken. Canadians are lucky to be able to trust the volunteer donation system in our country. To strengthen this system of volunteer donations and increase the pool of potential donors, we must pay tribute to these people. Making the second week of June national blood donor week can help us recruit and maintain the number of donors required in Canada.

I will submit another fact for us to consider for a few moments, that is the vastness of our great country, Canada, which extends from one ocean to another, from the 49th parallel to the far north. Although its population and donors are not distributed equally, we are fortunate to have a system that is coordinated nationally so that the blood of volunteer donors in Quebec can be transfused to a patient in Nunavut. Without national coordination of the blood system, the regions of our vast country would be left to their own devices to determine and meet their respective needs and to establish and administer their own safety protocols. Imagine what that would mean for remote areas.

We are fortunate to have a system that can quickly send blood donated in densely populated major centres to rural and remote areas. The scope and the impact of Canadian blood donations extend beyond the mobile or walk-in blood donor clinics. Giving blood is, in a way, an integral part of our society and should be commended.

As we all know, Canada is a cultural mosaic, reflecting the magnificent diversity of all regions of the world. We can imagine how hard it would be if our country could not count on volunteer donors from different blood groups and ethnic origins. These people, while building up the national blood bank, play a vital role in terms of special needs. To celebrate donors is to celebrate Canada.

Today I emphasized how lucky Canadians are to have such a blood system. Our system is coordinated nationally, and all the blood comes from volunteer donors. Because of this, the blood is safe, and we can trust our system. Our biggest challenge is to increase the number of donations to meet our needs. We would need 5% of healthy adults to regularly donate blood.

By passing Bill S-214 and designating the second week of June national blood donor week, we will be taking a big step in the right direction.

[Festivals and Special Events, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the media are talking about funding for the festival industry from the Government of Canada.

In spite of opposition from the Liberals and New Democrats to Budget 2007, we have announced an additional $30 million, and we are now transparently establishing the framework and criteria for this new program, which will target small and medium events, and not just large festivals. It will be in place at the end of the summer.

In the meantime, our government is showing that its priority is to help communities celebrate arts and heritage, and not to fill Liberal coffers. For example, this year, the Festival international de jazz de Montréal will receive more than $850,000, the Just for Laughs Festival will receive $900,000, and the FrancoFolies de Montréal will receive more than $375,000.

A number of festivals have been suffering for some years, because of the incompetence of the former Liberal government. One thing is sure, the Bloc will never be able to help them, but we want to and can take action.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Bill C-55 was unanimously passed by the House. On December 8, 2006 the Minister of Labour tabled a notice of motion in order to finally table the bill. This bill is now being delayed by the Bloc Québécois, which, as usual, would rather see legislation that would help Canadian and Quebec workers fail.

Can the Minister of Labour tell us when the wage earner protection bill will be tabled?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy about the passage at third reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, which provides for tougher mandatory sentences for persons convicted of serious offences involving firearms.

But the Liberals should be ashamed. They state publicly that they want to fight crime, yet they consistently refused to vote for Bill C-10. Why do the Liberals not want to protect victims of crime?

As for the Bloc, they voted against Bill C-10. The Bloc claims to be defending the interests of Quebec, but it is neglecting to protect the rights of victims of crime in Quebec. Whose interests is the Bloc really protecting? Clearly, the Bloc and the Liberal Party prefer to protect the criminals rather than the victims.

We are taking real steps to make our streets and communities safer.