House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.
Copyright November 24th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the government has to stop saying that everyone applauds its bill because that is not true. In Quebec, artists, creators, authors, composers, editors, the Union des consommateurs, which represents consumers, and the National Assembly are unanimously calling for major changes to Bill C-32.
Does the minister understand that he has to change his big-business-friendly bill substantially, finally recognize creators' copyright and compensate them properly?
Copyright November 24th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling for major amendments to Bill C-32 on copyright. The elected members in Quebec are calling on the Conservative government to protect Quebec creators better against illegal copying of their works and to compensate them better.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage listen to this call from Quebec and recognize the role of the creators of content and the importance of intellectual property to the vitality of Quebec culture?
Madam Speaker, the problem with Bill C-32 is that it takes away a great deal of revenue that artists were already receiving, from private copying for example, without replacing that revenue with something else, quite the contrary.
Again, the parliamentary secretary keeps saying that it was a tax on iPods. It is not a tax; it is a royalty. A tax goes into the pockets of the government, while a royalty goes to an artists' collective that distributes the money according to a complex but fair formula.
To answer the assertion that consumers are not interested in this, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that a Conservative Party pollster, Dimitri Pantazopoulos, conducted a survey in January 2010. He found that 71% of Canadians think that the current royalty of 29¢ on blank CDs is fair to consumers. These same Canadians are also prepared to pay royalties that could run between $20 and $30 on MP3 players and iPods, the type of devices that could hold 7,500 songs or 500 CDs. And 58% would pay up to $20, 59% would pay $25, and 56% would pay $30. Consumers—
Madam Speaker, on June 10, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question about a press release from Mario Chenart, the head of the Société professionnelle des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec or SPACQ. In the newspapers that morning, Mr. Chenart wondered whether the heritage minister even cared. But rather than interpret his words, I will read his press release and we will see what he had to say. I would ask the parliamentary secretary, who is here, to give a detailed answer.
Mario Chenart wrote:
Yesterday, the Conservative government introduced a bill in the House to amend the Copyright Act. The SPACQ was quick to read the bill in the hopes that it would reflect what creators had been calling for. But we were bitterly disappointed.
In fact, this new bill, which the government describes as “fair, balanced and full of common sense”, is so bad for authors, composers and performers that we have to wonder where is the wonderful balance between consumers' needs and creators' rights that the government boasts it is maintaining.
First, the government is again refusing to extend the private copying levy to digital platforms. By limiting it to cassettes and CDs, the Conservative government is depriving authors and composers of this major source of revenue. When was the last time you copied music onto a cassette? To ask the question is to answer it. In the age of the iPod, most music is copied onto these sorts of platforms, which remain excluded from the system. For years, artists' groups have consistently called for a revamping of the private copying levy, but the current government's so-called balanced approach ignores this.
Second, likely in response to American demands, the government is making piracy illegal. This is something the SPACQ can only agree with. The problem is that the tools the legislation gives to copyright owners are insufficient and obsolete. The bill in no way addresses the monetization problems caused by the fact that consumers download 95% of content illegally from the web. Legislators continue to place the burden of taking legal action on copyright owners. As for service providers, their responsibility is limited to providing the copyright owner with the information needed to identify the offender.
Meanwhile, Internet service providers continue to profit from the use of their bandwidth with this loss leader. Knowing that the vast majority of the flow of funds generated by music downloads on the Internet benefits service providers, we have every right to question their technological and financial responsibility towards copyright holders. The Conservative government prefers to ignore these considerations, absolve them of their responsibility and take them out of the equation altogether.
So the question is this: what balance are they talking about? Do we have a heritage minister prepared to act as a counterbalance to the interests of industry and watch over our so-called heritage?
While the government can claim that its bill is the fruit of extensive, Canada-wide consultation...it is somehow difficult to have faith in any process to review the Copyright Act that does not invite artists to the table—neither the SPACQ nor the UDA [the Union des artistes du Québec] was invited to the discussion table. There is no question that Bill C-32 is an exact replica of its predecessor, Bill C-61, which died on the order paper right before the election. And this has all been spearheaded by a heritage minister working in tandem with an industry minister who will not guarantee that all of the music on his portable MP3 player was obtained in compliance with all copyright laws. But thanks anyway for the consultation.
The stakes remain high and, over the next few months, the SPACQ will continue to make representations to remind our elected officials of their responsibilities regarding the heritage of Canadian artists.
That was from an SPACQ press release.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Madam Speaker, understandably, 25 seconds is not nearly long enough to explain why the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously refused to sign the Constitution in 1982. I hope to have the opportunity at a later date to explain this to the House. We have explained it many times, but clearly, no one understands.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is here to defend the interests of Quebec and of Quebeckers. And Quebeckers have virtually no interest in the Senate or Senate reform.
First and foremost, Senators currently have the ability to change their work methods themselves. All the better if they are good and competent. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Jacques Demers and all the others we never see, who are never there and have poor attendance records, can get together and decide to work, to be there when necessary, to get up early, to participate in committees and to undertake activities that are interesting, important and that matter in Canada's democratic process. If we saw these kinds of changes we would perhaps care a bit more about them and we could look at how constitutional amendments could change their method of operating.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I am astonished and flabbergasted—I know that is redundant—to hear the question from the hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform. He is appealing to the notion of democracy. How can he want to do something as anti-democratic as making changes to the other house, in violation of the current Constitution, which requires that Quebec and the provinces be formally consulted?
The current democratic process involves obtaining the support of 70% of the provinces or the equivalent of 50% of the population. That is the current democratic process. That is how democracy works. I do not understand how the minister can appeal to the notion of democracy and say he is proposing something more democratic, when his suggestion certainly does not respect the writtten democratic process.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, once again, for the umpteenth time, the Conservative government is introducing Bill C-10 on Senate reform to limit senators' terms to eight years. This government bill is unacceptable because such a change represents a major modification to the Senate structure. That can only be achieved through a Constitutional amendment, which requires the approval of seven provinces representing 50% of the Canadian population.
The Conservative government's desire to unilaterally change one of the major elements of the Senate structure shows its complete lack of respect for provincial powers. This proves, once again, as though it needed to be proven, that this government—which was elected on the promise of governing in a less centralist fashion and showing greater respect for the provinces' jurisdictions and aspirations—feels utter disdain for the provinces and for Quebec in particular.
In fact, evidence to that effect continues to accumulate. The Conservative government always opposes any proposals that would give tangible expression to the recognition of the Quebec nation. It has never put words into action. On the contrary, it refuses to recognize that the Quebec nation has one language: French. Instead, it keeps trying to make Quebec even more bilingual by, among other things, making it impossible for companies under federal jurisdiction to be subject to the Charter of the French Language and Bill 101. It refuses to take into account the existence of our national culture, whether in the administration of our laws or the operation of the institutions that reflect our culture and identity. It refuses to recognize that our nation has needs and aspirations that differ from those of the rest of Canada. Instead, it continues to promote a form of multiculturalism that makes the French fact, the Quebec fact, a minority among other minorities and encourages immigrants to preserve their culture, all to the detriment of the continuity of our national culture, which is directly threatened as a result. This Conservative government refuses to even consider the possibility that Quebec should have its own radio-television and telecommunications commission to make regulations based on Quebec's unique interests and challenges.
Another aspect of this government's centralist policies is the fact that it wants to create a single securities regulator for all of Canada, even though the current system works perfectly well. We already know that it will refuse to limit federal spending power in the provinces.
And that, unfortunately, speaks to government's worthless commitment to give the provinces, their areas of jurisdiction and their aspirations more respect. Now this government is pushing its centralist interests even further, going over the heads of Quebec and the provinces in order to unilaterally impose changes to a major element of Canada's democratic system. And these changes, as we pointed out earlier, require amendments to the constitution and approval from the provinces.
The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. Everyone should know that, but apparently they do not. Quebec and the provinces must be consulted on all reforms that affect the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled and the residency requirement of senators. These types of changes affecting the essential characteristics of our federal democratic system cannot be made unilaterally by Parliament and must instead be agreed upon by the provinces. The government is clearly choosing to ignore this reality.
The Quebec government—led by a federalist party, I should add—clearly expressed a similar opinion. In November 2007, the intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, reiterated Quebec's traditional position when he said:
The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Regional Veto Act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.
The same day, the National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:
That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.
The government was thus formally requesting the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4, which became Bill C-10 on Senate term limits.
Naturally, the Conservative government may believe that it can point out that Quebec is zealously defending the principles of a Constitution that it refused to sign. Quebec's position on this matter is far from contradictory. In fact, it is and always has been very clear: there will be no Senate reform until the issue of Quebec's status is settled.
The Conservative government undoubtedly wants to avoid that problem. However, it cannot circumvent the will of Quebec and the provinces in an area by going it alone within their jurisdiction.
This very clearly shows that Bill C-10 proposed by the current federal government would directly thwart the aspirations of Quebec and the other provinces. We are also concerned that this would create a precedent, allowing the federal government to get its foot in the door.
This does not mean that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to making any change to the Senate. But it is clear that Senate reform is not at all in keeping with Quebeckers' aspirations. They are rather indifferent about Senate reform.
According to a Léger Marketing poll conducted in March 2010, only 8% of Quebeckers believe that the Senate plays an important role and that the current appointment system works well; 22% of Quebeckers would like senators to be elected rather than appointed; and 43%, the largest group of respondents, would even be in favour of abolishing the Senate.
Clearly, in the current state of affairs, there is nothing about the Senate that can arouse the passion of citizens. Senators have an unfortunate reputation for high absenteeism and dereliction of duty. We should note that the Senate only sits 83 days per year.
However, the Senate also governs itself. It could make certain changes such as increasing the number of working days, reorganizing its committees to make them more effective, and adopting a more demanding schedule, along the lines of that of the House of Commons.
The government could also contribute to improving the institution's image by improving the quality of its appointments, by choosing more credible and more competent candidates rather than play the populist card and make purely opportunistic appointments. It should be noted that some senators are known for their absenteeism. Senator Jacques Demers, for example, was present for only 21 of the 83 short days that the Senate sits. That is less than one day in four on a schedule that is not very demanding.
And what can we say about Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu who is a staunch defender of the families of victims of crime and kidnapping, but is in favour of getting rid of the firearms registry or, at least, removing hunting rifles from the registry? I gather that he never bothered to check what type of weapon Marc Lépine used in committing the massacre at École Polytechnique in 1989. What is more, in a logic that may raise some eyebrows, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu blames the growing number of single mothers in Quebec society for the loss of hunting as an activity passed down from father to son. And again according to this senator, the decline in the popularity of hunting has a direct effect on the increase in highway accidents. It is unbelievable. This was published in Quebec newspapers.
This speaks volumes about some of the most prominent senators this Conservative government has managed to find. There is certainly nothing there to boost the Senate's image and nothing that is likely to get Quebeckers interested in the fate of the Senate.
In any event, it is clear that Senate term limits do not top the list of Quebeckers' priorities, to say the least. This government has enough to think about without having to get the public interested in an institution that many could see disappear without batting an eye.
Most importantly, it is totally unacceptable to allow the federal government to overstep its powers by circumventing the constitutional process, thereby trampling on the powers and aspirations of Quebec and the provinces and on its own commitments.
Pope John Paul II Day Act November 16th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-573, which is titled An Act to establish Pope John Paul II Day. It was introduced in the House by the Liberal member for Brampton West and would establish April 2 as Pope John Paul II Day.
The Bloc Québécois supports this bill and sees it as a tribute to the considerable role that John Paul II played internationally as a promoter of peace.
The Bloc Québécois would also like to use this bill as an opportunity to highlight the Polish community's contribution to modern Quebec, for one, and its role in Quebec culture. I am thinking, for example, of Alice Parizeau, Jacques Parizeau's late wife, and Bernard Adamus, who was recently named the 2010 new artist of the year and received his Félix award last week at the ADISQ gala.
The Bloc Québécois would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by Catholics in building Quebec, despite abuses in the church's dogma concerning the rights of women and homosexuals and despite having hidden cases of pedophilia in the church.
John Paul II spoke about the fact that doing good deeds does not come naturally. He was absolutely correct, and I should say that his quote on this topic is one of my favourites.
Karol Józef Wojtyla was born in Poland on May 18, 1920, and died in the Vatican on April 2, 2005, the date to be commemorated by this bill. He was a priest in Poland, became the Bishop and Archbishop of Krakow, was elevated to Cardinal, and was elected Pope of the Roman Catholic Church on October 16, 1978, choosing the name John Paul II.
His pontificate lasted 26 years and was the third-longest in the history of the Church, following that of St. Peter and of Pius IX, which was 31 years.
His desire to reconcile different faiths led to a marked improvement in the Catholic Church's relations with Jews, members of the Orthodox Church and Anglicans. He initiated the first interfaith gathering at Assisi in 1984, bringing together more than 194 religious leaders.
This travelling pope visited more than 129 countries during his pontificate, was seen by more than 150 million people, and established major gatherings such as World Youth Day. He beatified 1,340 people and canonized 483 saints, more than in the previous five centuries.
He defended the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, in which he had participated as a bishop. His desire to defend human dignity led him to promote human rights. He opposed communism and his actions, especially in Poland, led to the fall of the Iron Curtain. He also attacked the excesses of capitalism.
According to Wikipedia, John Paul II is considered one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century and, I would add, an ambassador of peace.
But his work for peace is not finished. The Catholic church suffers from serious flaws and iniquities that alienate people who believe in equality and social justice.
Three serious flaws still mar this great international institution.
The first, and perhaps the least serious of the three, is the requirement that priests be celibate. This is an anachronistic requirement whose usefulness has never been proven, but it has long made the church a refuge for men who do not want to marry women.
The sordid cases of pedophilia in the Catholic church—which have been documented and proven and in some instances have gone to court—are too numerous to be ignored. The international community is still waiting for the Vatican to make a public confession and an act of contrition and take real, transparent steps with the legal authorities in every country affected, in addition to promising that this will never happen again.
Moreover, the Catholic church still does not consider women to be equal to men. Still today, in 2010, it is one of the few institutions where the fact that women cannot hold the same positions as men is tolerated: no female priests, no female cardinals, no female popes. It is forbidden.
It is incomprehensible that in 2010, we should allow an institution that is such an integral part of our communities and our parishes to so blatantly flout rights as fundamental as male-female equality.
The bill introduced by the member for Brampton West would establish a day to recognize Pope John Paul II for being an ambassador of peace. If ever there were a pope who put an end to the anachronistic abuses I just spoke of and restored respect and human dignity, he would deserve a week at the very least.
When we look at everything that still remains to be done in the Catholic church and everything that has not been done over the centuries, we can see that John Paul II was right when he said, “Good, in fact, is not easy.”
Mr. Speaker, music is not free. Musical works belong to the artists, and that is why we have copyright legislation. I know that copyright is an English word that means “the right to copy”, but in French, and it is the French-language principle that I am defending, we talk about droit des auteurs or “the right of the authors”. I hope that the interpreters do not laugh at my English.
We need to remember that in any given year, about $10 million is distributed to artists. If we do not modernize the private copying system, we will no longer have a need for copyright legislation, since there will be no more authors. Music is not free. We must compensate our authors. We must pay for what we use.