Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
PATRICK PICHETTE: So good afternoon or good day, everybody.
My name is Patrick Pichette,
and we have really a unique opportunity today,
an exclusive interview with the Prime Minister,
and by exclusive, I really mean inclusive,
because we've brought in all of Canada and their questions back into this room.
[repeating in French]
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER : Thanks.
PATRICK PICHETTE: So, I'll just explain how this works.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Sure.
PATRICK PICHETTE: In a nutshell, what we have is following the Throne Speech,
we've opened up on Google a page where every Canadian could come up,
write either on a text basis or load up their own video and ask questions,
and in addition to this, people could vote.
So over 1800 questions were tabled,
over just around 175,000 votes came in.
So this is very participative.
This is kind of democracy at work.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: That's big.
PATRICK PICHETTE: [repeating in French]
What we've done is we've picked from the very top tier a selection of questions,
and then some we'll see on video,
and then some also I'll just read for you, text for you to react to.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: That's great.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Are we ready to go? RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: We're ready.
PATRICK PICHETTE: So the first one is actually a question
that has been tabled to us both in French and English.
The gentleman, Joseph Collins from Whitehorse,
has a question related to the budget and the budget deficit,
so why don't we listen to the question.
[speaking French] QUESTION : Hello Prime Minister.
I am Joseph Collins. And I live in Whitehorse
During the last election,
you have said that Canada was in a solid financial situation,
and that we were not going to enter a deficit, or recession by the way.
While the economic crisis is sustain itself in Canada,
we have seen the deficit reach 56 billion dollars.
Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer,
says that we are now in structural deficit.
If you think he's right, how do you intend to get us out of it?
And if you think he's wrong, who's lying?
Thank you.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, I can respond in French.
PATRICK PICHETTE : In English or in French, as you desire.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER : Well, he asked me the question in French.
I can respond in French.
First of all, since the big economic fall worldwide at the end of 2008,
we have seen almost all the countries of the world are in a deficit position.
But the reality is that the position of Canada, the fiscal position of Canada
is much stronger than the vast majority of the countries.
Our deficit is one of the smallest in developed countries.
It' not a deficit of structure, meaning a permanent deficit;
that's not it.
But it's essential to do certain things to avoid such a situation,
and we are very clear in the budget:
First we have to finish stimulus programs at the end of this recession..
That means, we have established the date of 21st of March 2011
for the termination of the vast majority of the extra-ordinary stimulus advances.
And after that, we have taken some necessary measures to insure
that the governmental expenses are going to increase in a fashion very, very slow in the future
And if we do, if we do those two things,
we can avoid long-term deficit and we can also avoid the tax raises,
Because it's important to us, as conservators, to avoid tax raises,
which seriously harm the future of our economy.[French dialogue ends]
I'll just maybe repeat a little bit,
that, you know, it's basically through ending our stimulus programs March 2011,
and through, as the budget outlined, a series of measures
to ensure that government spending grows very slowly after this recession,
that revenue will recover,
and we will be able to balance our budget over basically a five-year term without raising taxes,
and that's very important, because obviously tax hikes could damage the economy.
Now, I should just say that a lot of experts have commented on our fiscal plan,
and frankly, as far as I've seen, they are virtually all in agreement
that these measures are sufficient to come out of deficit
to avoid a permanent or structural deficit.
In fact, some of the experts in the big financial institutions actually went so far
as to say that the government is being overly cautious,
that we could actually come out of deficit sooner.
We don't agree with that, but we certainly will err on the side of caution.
But if we do these things, as I say, we've been in a position
because we've got a strong fiscal position in Canada,
we've been in a position to deliver some of the largest stimulus programs
in the world during this recession,
but we are also in a position to come out of this deficit quickly,
unlike most countries.
This will be a great advantage to Canada as we go forward.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Great, thank you for that question…and answer.
We'll go to something related.
The second one is…
let me go to the next one.
The next one is about related to the budget,
but regarding foreign aid policies and Canada's contribution.
This YouTube user, his or her name,
SP34 is the way that she…or he…
so let's look at the question on the video again.
QUESTION: Hi Prime Minister Harper.
My question is will the government continue its current financial commitment
to aid in Africa of $2.1 billion per year beyond 2010,
and pursue trade legislation similar to the African Growth and Opportunities Act
that exists in the United States?
Thanks.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: On the first part of the question,
I think we should be very clear.
Canada was…we made a commitment some years ago to double our foreign aid budget
and to double our aid to Africa,
and Canada was the first G7 country to achieve those targets,
so we're very proud of the work we've done there.
Over the next year foreign aid will increase again and Canada will go up another eight percent,
very rapid growth.
After that it will be flat lined.
It will be held constant at these record levels of spending as our deficit recovers.
We're in a position in Canada that we can maintain these strong levels
of international support without having to cut them,
without having… in order to reduce our deficit,
and that's what we want to continue to do.
So we'll get up to these high levels that we're maintaining.
We'll maintain those kind of levels of aid,
and obviously we'll work within that budget as we go forward.
We're also, as maybe I should mention,
we're chairing of course,
Canada's chairing the G8 and the G20 leaders' summits this year in June,
and our priority for development really for the G8 meeting is to focus on maternal and child health,
on a series of investments we want all G8 countries to do in coordination
to really save the lives of women and children.
We think that with reasonably modest investments, and less face it,
with the fiscal situation that a lot of countries are in,
investments in the future are going to have to be fairly modest,
but with modest investments, we think we can make a big difference in these areas,
so yes, we will be maintaining our aid levels,
and obviously focusing on priorities like maternal and child health going forward.
PATRICK PICHETTE: That's terrific, thank you.
We're going to switch, if you don't mind, switching gears from the budget,
and we know that Senate reform is something that you've spoken about for many years,
so we have one representative,
Harvey Armstrong from Woodstock, Ontario.
He's submitted a question about Senate reform, so why don't we listen to Harvey.
Let's watch it on YouTube again.
QUESTION: Hi Prime Minister Harper.
I'd like to know how you justify having unelected representatives
of Canadian citizens in the Senate.
Why can't we elect our senators? Thank you.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, it's a good question by Harvey,
and I don't really justify it.
My position for a long time is that the Senate should be reformed,
and part of that reform should be the ability of people to choose to elect their own senators.
I've had an open invitation to Parliament,
to the provinces and territories to allow for elections.
We've had election legislation before Parliament that Parliament has chosen not to pass.
I've invited the provincial government across the country to elect senators.
We'd certainly be interested in naming some elected senators,
and so far only one has done so: that was the province of Alberta.
They had an election several years ago, a fellow named Bert Brown,
who is the leader of the triple-E Senate reform movement in Canada.
Bert was elected in that election, actually took place before I was in office,
but when we had a vacancy in Alberta,
I named Bert Brown because he had won,
he had placed highest in the Alberta election for the choosing of senators.
So we've named Bert, and he continues to push in the Senate.
We'll be continuing to push in this parliamentary session the idea of Senate reform,
and particularly of Senate elections,
so we'll continue to push that agenda forward.
Now, look, in the meantime, what do you do when you don't have elected senators?
Well, you know, I think the truth of the matter is this:
if people don't give me elected senators to name,
then I will name senators myself,
and obviously if we don't have elected senators to name,
then the senate should at least by chosen by the government people did elect.
Because if I don't name senators in the absence of election,
then the Senate will be controlled not just by unelected senators,
by unelected senators that elect a government that people…
that represent a government people didn't elect,
and that was the previous government.
So we'll continue to appoint senators,
but I certainly continue to invite Parliament and the provinces to give us elected senators,
and I'd be more than happy to name them to the Upper House.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Great. Thank you.
I'm sure that Harvey'll be thrilled by this answer.
Let me change completely topic for a few minutes.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Sure.
PATRICK PICHETTE: I'll just grab a bit of water.
I want to talk about Afghanistan for a moment.
We had B. Jonte from Waterloo - this is a written question, so there's no video.
The question was submitted on the topic of Afghan detainees.
So her question was:
"Why is the government not more open about the Afghan detainee issue?
So the question goes on to say,
"Every time a legitimate question is asked,
the response is that we should - in quotations - 'support our troops' and look the other way."
So that was B. Jonte's question.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Yeah, well, first of all it's important to say
I don't agree with the premise of the question.
First of all, this, you know, this issue has been bandied around now for nearly four years.
And yet we have no evidence that Canadian soldiers have done anything wrong.
There's no evidence that they have been abusing detainees
or that they've been complicit in the abuse of detainees.
There's just no evidence of this at all.
So you know, I think that our men and women in uniform and other public servants,
you know, before they're accused of something,
they have a right to know there's some evidence of it, and there is no evidence.
Now, you know, through the process,
various people have asked for all kinds of background information on this.
It's called access to information.
There's been court cases;
There's been access to information requests.
This government, there are public servants in charge of releasing documents,
independent public servants.
They release documents based on the law.
Most things can be released.
Some things can't be released, if they have to do with national security
or privacy or there's a number of other things.
These public servants make the decisions independently
on what can or cannot be released according to the law.
But tens of thousands of pages of documents have been released.
Now, there are some who are saying,
"Well, what's…you know, are they hiding something in the unreleased material?"
There's no particular evidence of that,
but I've asked Frank Iacobucci, a former Supreme Court Justice,
to review the work of all these independent public servants and be sure
that things are not being hidden,
that everything that's supposed to be released is released,
so I think that's a fair compromise.
But as I say, I think that you know, there's been a lot of loose accusations thrown around,
but really no evidence.
I think our men and women in uniform and other public servants have been doing a,
you know, a good job in Afghanistan under extremely difficult conditions.
I think they do deserve our support and I certainly think they do deserve,
before they're accused of anything,
there should be some basis of these kinds of accusations.
I, you know, I'm confident that the record will continue to show that they've acted honourably
when problems have arisen,
and we have had instances where there was some evidence or some,
you know, basic evidence of mistreatment at the hands of the Afghan government,
then corrective actions have been taken.
That has been, you know, relatively infrequently.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you for talking to that, sir.
Switch again topics: the environment.
So Shannon in Victoria sends us this question about…
and she's just lived the Olympics with the warmth there.
So her question is:
"We're experiencing our warmest winter in BC.
Climate change is obviously affecting the weather here in Canada.
Is your government willing to take the strong measures necessary
to adequately deal with climate change?"
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, the answer's yes,
and basically, Patrick, I would say to the questioner that there are -
I missed the name, but there are…
PATRICK PICHETTE: Shannon.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Shannon.
There are three broad things we've been doing to deal with the climate change issue.
The first is to try and come up with an effective international treaty on climate change,
and in our view, our position since we've been elected
is that to have an effective international treaty,
you have to have one that covers all emissions.
Now, we didn't have that before.
We had, previously had an agreement that covered only a very, frankly,
about a third of global emissions.
So we said we needed a treaty that covers all emissions,
and that's the agreement we got at Copenhagen.
Now, it's not perfect, but at least for the first time,
we have virtually every country in the world saying they will be part
of an effort that will include their emissions.
So we're obviously making commitments under that agreement,
and further negotiation will go forward internationally in the next year
or so to try and hammer out some more details and that.
So we're doing that internationally.
At the continental level, as you know very well from your own background, Patrick,
as a displaced Canadian, we live in an integrated North American economy.
We believe we need also a continental approach,
particularly when you're dealing with a lot of aspects of regulation
or control of actual emissions in Canada.
Because the problem we have with the high integration of our economy,
if we impose emissions regulations on plants and firms
that don't exist just south of the border,
those things will move overnight,
because we have a fully integrated economy,
so we need a joint approach.
Since President Obama was elected, I mean, you know, President Obama's obviously,
you know, had a very different position on this than his predecessor.
He certainly indicated a willingness to tackle climate change and to work with us on this.
When he came up to visit me in Ottawa shortly after his election,
we established what we call a clean energy dialogue,
where we're working together on a series of joint projects,
and ultimately I hope a continental cap and trade system on greenhouse gas emissions.
So that's the second thing, what we're doing continentally.
And then the third thing are some national actions.
We continue to fund,
I mean literally billions of dollars into research to deal with the development
of clean energy technology.
You know, Canada, as you know, is in a remarkable position,
is that we are maybe the only country in the world
that literally has a surplus of virtually every form of energy.
Energy security is not an issue in this country.
So whatever the energy mix of the future is,
Canada is going to be a major player in the energy business.
That's why I say we're an emerging energy superpower,
but we want to make sure we're a clean energy superpower,
so whatever the future energy mix is,
we want to make sure we're doing the most advanced,
we have the most advanced technology in those areas,
and that we have the cleanest form of energy in all of those areas.
That's why we're investing in things like carbon capture and storage.
That's why we have, you know, we have the green infrastructure fund
in our economic stimulus program.
We have a series of what we call eco-energy initiatives to encourage the development
of new technology and energy efficiency.
We have, you know, as I say, we just have really…we have the gamut.
And we're going to make sure whatever the energy mix of the future is,
we're a major provider, and we're doing it as cleanly as possible.
So those are the three things we're doing,
you know, internationally, continentally and nationally.
Still a lot of work to be done.
This is, you know, this is not an easy area.
I think what all your viewers should realize is what causes emissions is economic activity.
You know, all emissions virtually are caused by either people heating themselves
or moving around or engaged in economic activity of some kind.
So to change our energy use carbon footprint over time
requires the development and adaptation of a new generation of technology,
and that's what we're trying to do.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Great, thank you for that question…that answer.
We…change subject completely again.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Sure.
PATRICK PICHETTE: We're going to go to seals.
So the question comes from Phoqueshot in Windsor, Ontario.
The question is as follows: "Why is the fate of harp seal population in the hands of hunters
instead of that of qualified scientists?
So please cancel," is the request, "the 2010 commercial seal hunt."
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, as you know, that's a minority view among Canadians.
Let me just say a couple of things about this.
First of all, the premise of the question really is wrong.
All hunts in Canada,
all aspects of the fishing industry are regulated by scientifically based regulations.
We would only allow a hunt if it were ecologically sustainable.
In the case of seals, as I think many of your viewers will know,
a seal is not an endangered species in Canada.
We could hunt many, many more seals than we actually hunt if that were the sole criteria.
So there's no danger of the seal population disappearing on us.
There are literally millions, in fact all the evidence says it's a growing population.
It's a small…you have to realise, the seal hunt is a small hunt,
I mean relative to many other aspects of animal husbandry in this country.
I mean, the number of seals that traditional fishers or that the Inuit people harvest every year
is very small compared to the number of cattle or the number of pigs
or the number of chickens or any other animal that we use as part of our economic activity,
whether for food or clothing or whatever else.
So you know, I guess our view as the government of Canada,
and I think most Canadians' view is,
you know, these…the hunt has to be treated fairly internationally.
Just because, you know, it's only our Inuit people or a few other traditional communities
doing sealing doesn't mean you should be able to single them out and treat them differently
than you would treat the cattle industry or any other industry.
And quite frankly, the changes,
the regulations put in place over the past generations have made this a very humane hunt.
I think as even The Economist,
the British publication said not too many months ago,
if you compare the standards of the seal hunt compared to the standards of slaughterhouses
in many industries,
this is one of the most humane…
this is one of the most humane cases of animal husbandry in the world.
And so as I say, we will continue to vigorously defend our sealers,
but people need to understand we would…
this is completely dictated by science.
There is no scientific evidence that says the seal population is in jeopardy.
PATRICK PICHETTE: In decline (inaudible). RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Yeah.
PATRICK PICHETTE: We'll switch over, if you don't mind, in French. So we have…
[speaking French] So, we have a question that was asked by Mister Laflane de in Quebec.
Mr Laflane writes to us and tells us:
"What are you going to do to better protect the pension funds of the Canadian workers
who are confronted with bankrupt employers?"
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER : Yes, it's a... it's obviously,
it's a question a little more pertinent during a recession than normally.
We should - given the question is from Quebec-
we should first mention that the regulation of the vast majority -
of the private pension plans in Canada are,
are regulated by the provinces and not by the federal.
But we also have a role,
And during the crisis, our Finance Minister and his parliamentary secretary,
Jim Flaherty et Ted Menzies,
are have been consulting with interests across the country to examine those issues.
In the fall, we have introduced, in collaboration with the provinces some changes
to better protect private pension plans.
We have changed rules in several cases to address
the bankruptcy problems which exist right now.
In general, we should understand that the regime of the pensions,
private and public in Canada, is in general very, very strong.
Especially in comparison to the situation in other countries.
And we have done several improvements to the regime of pensions to,
to better help the elderly and the retirees.
For example, we have created the saving account - tax free,
for the entire population to have another vehicle to accumulate savings for their retirement.
We have created, it's an action, a very important action,
we have created the allocation of revenue,
the capacity for the retirees to divide their pension with their spouse,
their husband, their wife, to reduce their taxes
and to have a retirement a lot more secure.
These are and these are only two actions that we have taken.
We have taken several actions and our consultations continue,
not only with the population and the industry in general,
but also with the provinces, because we are discussing, for example,
the possibility of improving the regime of pensions in Canada,
or the regime of pensions in Quebec, CPP, QPP.
And..., but to make major changes to those programs,
that work very well in general,
we have to have the consensus in the matter of pensions.
It is, it is a shared regime.
PIERRE PICHETTE : Thank you for the answer.
Our next question is also in writing. [French dialogue ends]
But it's in English, so I'll switch.
We'll talk about the criminal justice system is featured prominently in the Throne Speech.
This question is from Chris in Waterloo, and he writes,
"Since research has shown that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter future crime,
what makes you as the Prime Minister believe this is still an effective way
of persecuting criminals?"
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, I think the view of the population of Canada on this issue
is actually pretty clear,
that when serious crimes are committed,
people expect the penalties to match these crimes.
And obviously, you know, for 40 years our criminal justice system
was going in a very different direction.
We were…
you know, there are these arguments that told people somehow if you don't punish criminals,
that crime will go away.
I never quite understood the philosophy,
but I think people understand that that approach has not been effective.
So we have been, since we've come into office,
trying to make sure,
trying to toughen up our laws and make sure that the crimes are appropriate.
You know, for example we think that if people commit serious crimes, violent crimes,
we don't think it's appropriate that they would serve their sentence at home,
what's called conditional sentences, effectively house arrest.
We don't think it's…
and we don't think it's appropriate that very serious or repeat crimes
would not be subject to at least some kind of minimum penalty, minimum prison time.
I mean, surely if a crime is serious enough, a *** charge,
for example, there should be some prison time for a *** charge.
So these are the kinds of changes we've been making over time.
They've been very well supported by the Canadian public.
I don't want to say crime is out of control in this country,
but we do know that there have been some very worrying growth areas,
particularly if you look at the areas of guns, gangs and drugs,
and this is a growth area, not just in Canada, but around the world.
It's an international phenomenon.
But we do think it's very important that the criminal justice system send a strong message
that such behaviour is not acceptable,
and that it be appropriately punished,
and that those who engage in such behaviour understand
what the likelihood of punishment actually is.
Because what we do know about deterrence is it doesn't work
unless people are actually certain they're going to get punished.
But if you create a system where there's always a loophole,
and you can always get out of the punishment,
or the punishment can always be downgraded or forgotten,
then it's clear, that kind of a system does not deter people.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Is not credible.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Is not credible.
It's not credible.
I think…I'm not an expert in this area,
but I think the evidence suggests it isn't the length of the punishment that matters;
it's the certainty of the punishment.
And if there's no certainty you'll be punished, then no possible penalty will matter.
So that's why we think it's important to actually have a minimum penalty for serious crimes.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you for that answer.
Switch again.
Canadians have a lot on their mind,
so another topic is childcare.
It's been on the national agenda for some time,
and the next question we're going to watch on video this time, if you allow,
Patrick M. from Toronto has a question, so let's take a look, on childcare.
QUESTION: Hello Mr. Harper. My name is Patrick (Inaudible) .
I'm a fourth-year student in Early Childhood Education at Ryerson University in Toronto.
I have one question to ask you:
why aren't you investing in a national childcare plan?
This social service is an essential part of family life in Canada.
Offering families $1200 a year for childcare doesn't even make a dent
in the actual cost of childcare,
and that plan, to be quite frank,
is an insult to any family that actually relies on it.
By having equal access to subsidized childcare,
parents can actively join the workforce.
Currently there are 5 million children in Canada,
and one third of those children have mothers who are working.
How can they join the rest of the workforce if they're expected to raise their children at home?
How does that benefit our economy?
It doesn't at all.
Every dollar you invest in childcare, there's a $17 return.
I urge you read up on some of the articles presented
by Michael Krashinsky and Gordon Cleveland.
They're both professors at the University of Toronto in Scarborough,
and they specialize in how to finance a national childcare plan.
Think of how this investment will sustain Canada in the future,
so when we're faced with a recession,
we can actually take control and lead our way out of it.
Thank you.
PATRICK PICHETTE: So that was Patrick.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Yeah, well, obviously we have a very different approach,
and I think our approach has been well received by Canadians.
First of all, Canadians want to make their own childcare decisions.
I think probably my own family was not a typical…we used a combination.
You know, sometimes we looked after the kids at home,
sometimes we used, or part of the time we used a daycare.
We also used family members or we paid babysitters, so…
and I think you'll actually see that a lot of Canadians have a lot of different childcare needs.
There are a range of things we do in Canada to support the childcare choices of Canadians.
There's a generous tax credit for actual… or tax deductions for actual childcare expenses.
There's also the per-child tax credit that we created for all dependent children
after we came to office,
$2000 tax credit of 15 percent a year.
We also created of course the childcare payment that Patrick referred to,
which gives parents more options.
Now, I should say that,
you know, and there are some provinces that run actual childcare systems,
which would obviously be the choice of those provinces,
since this once again would be a provincial responsibility.
But you know, we had a previous government that promised
to create a national childcare system for many years.
They spent billions of dollars.
Canadian parents never saw any of that.
So we took that money,
put it into direct support for Canadian parents so they can make their own childcare choices,
and if they want to make the choices that Patrick would make,
there are certainly those kinds of options available,
but not everybody is seeking exactly those kinds of options.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you.
Our next question comes from Crazyforyou79 in Saskatoon.
So Crazyforyou wrote:
"University students are expected to pay back so much money,
plus high interest, after furthering their education,
when most do not start getting a liveable salary right after school.
Why is there not more assistance when it comes to student loan?"
So that's Crazyforyou79.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, as you know,
while the post-secondary education system is really primarily run by the provinces,
we do have the Canada Student Loan Program.
The federal government is very involved in giving student loans to our young people,
and we've tried over the years to adjust the terms of those
so that they take account of students' financial circumstances as they come out of school.
And one of the things that is obviously a big concern to us
over the past year is we know that younger people and new graduates
have been particularly hard-hit in the recession.
That's why we've introduced a number of specific programs in the last couple of years
through the budgets to try and address those issues in particular,
including, you know, things like expanding the Pathways program,
increasing federal hiring of summer students
to specifically work at federal government occupations,
but you know, this remains, we continue dialogue with student organizations.
The student loan program,
I think, you know, relative to what you see elsewhere remains fairly generous in Canada.
I know a lot of student depend on it,
and we want to make sure that this remains a viable and sustainable program,
and we'll continue to work with student organizations
on how we can change it to make sure it responds to students' actual economic
and financial circumstances.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you for that answer.
So we have a couple more questions, and then we're done.
The second-last one, in French.
[speaking French ] Another subject of interest for Canadians.
Repentigny, Mr. Olivier Pinard, Mr. Pinard is asking you:
"What can you do…
or can you do a new referendum over the sovereignty of Quebec?"
So, can you do a new referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec?
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER : Oh, I can say it's possible...
but that will never be a choice for our government.
I lead a government, totally federalist..
The Quebec people, the French speaking people,
the date of the foundation of the city of Quebec was over 400 years ago now,
by Samuel de Champlain,
the people from Quebec… the French speaking people have had,
have had a prime role in the development of Canada.
And our government is very devoted to the unity of our nation,
as, like I think, not only the vast majority of the Quebec people,
but also the vast majority of all Canadians,
and we are here to,
to insure that the federalism respond to the needs of, of all the Canadians.
We are…it's important to say something.
We are in an economic situation, in an international situation,
from time to time with a lot of danger.
And we live in the most prosperous country, the most pluralist,
the most peaceful that the planet has ever known.
And, in my opinion, it's essential,
it's the number one obligation of our national government to preserve our unity,
and the big benefits that we all have,
thanks to our, our participation in this wonderful country.
So of course, I'm a sovereignist Canadian.
And I don't have any intention to hold another referendum upon a different sovereignty.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you for this answer. [French dialogue ends]
The last question that we have today
was the question that was passed with the most votes, and it's about marijuana.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Oh really!
PATRICK PICHETTE: It was the question with the most votes,
tackled the subject of marijuana.
And it is written as follows:
"A majority of Canadians, when polled,
say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults,
just like alcohol.
Why don't you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?"
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, it's a good question.
I'm not sure I've seen this particular poll.
There are different polls on this subject that show different things,
but you know, I have to say young children,
I guess they're now…
Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11,
but maybe they're not that young, but they are at the age where,
you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use,
and I guess as a parent,
you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else's children.
You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs,
but that said, I don't think…
I think I've been very fortunate to live a drug-free life,
and I don't meet many people who've led a drug-free life who regret it.
Met a lot of people who haven't, who've regretted it.
So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children,
for everybody's children.
Now, I also want people to understand what we're really talking about here
when we're talking about the drug trade.
You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs,
and yeah, you know, there's lots of crimes a lot worse than,
you know, casual use of marijuana.
But when people are buying from the drug trade,
they are not buying from their neighbour.
They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence
and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world.
All across the world.
You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs.
Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax,
that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting,
and the damage they do.
Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it,
you know, you'd get the money and all would be well.
But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they're illegal.
The reason drugs…it's not that.
The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad.
And even if these things were legalized,
I can predict with a lot of confidence
that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people.
Because the very nature of the dependency they create,
the damage they create, drug users.
the social upheaval and catastrophe they create, particularly in third world countries…
I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America,
some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing,
not just to people's lives as drug users.
Look at the violence it's creating in neighbourhoods,
the destruction of social systems, of families,
of governmental institutions,
the corruption of police forces.
I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations,
and while I know people, you know, have different views,
I must admit myself sometimes I'm frustrated by how little impact governments
have been able to have on the drug trade internationally.
But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it,
it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry.
It will never be that.
And I think we all need to understand that,
and we all need to make sure our kids understand,
not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them,
but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they,
through use of their money,
fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics.
PATRICK PICHETTE: Thank you for this thoughtful answer.
It was a great opportunity for Canadians to reach out to you,
to people to vote to tell you what's on their mind.
You see a broad spectrum of questions that really reflect what's on the mind of Canadians.
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this.
It was a real pleasure for us as well at Google to be able to facilitate this.
Thank you again for your time.
RT. HON. STEPHEN HARPER: Well, thanks for having me, Patrick,
and I appreciate the opportunity and the variety of the questions.
[speaking French] Thank you very much
PATRICK PICHETTE: It is really my pleasure. Talk to you soon. Thank you very much.