Dean Del Mastro

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will not pretend to be someone I am not. I am from the riding of Peterborough, which is not under Wheat Board jurisdiction. I am not from the city of Winnipeg or Guelph, or Prince Edward Island. I am a person, though, who grew up on a farm and knows about growing crops, harvesting crops, having the crops come off the auger of the combine, and watching the fruit of one's labour. I cannot imagine being in a country today, Canada, where I would not have full say over my product. That is what this party is standing for. We have overwhelmingly elected all of the members from the Wheat Board jurisdiction.

Could the member tell me if he has spoken to farmers in his riding who believe the grain is, in fact, theirs and that they should have jurisdiction over it, not the Wheat Board?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I was here in the previous parliament when the previous Speaker ruled that Parliament was indeed supreme. It is a ruling that has in fact been reviewed in parliaments around the world that have similar systems to us.

I would simply say for the member that the average family of four in my riding and in his riding contributes the equivalent of a week's worth of groceries to the CBC. Do those members not believe that those hard-working families deserve transparency and accountability from the CBC? They deserve to see how their money is being spent. They deserve nothing less from their public broadcaster.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would respond to the question with a question. When will the NDP understand that this is about fundamental accountability and transparency for each and every Canadian? Hard-working Canadians contribute their tax dollars to this government. Many of those dollars go toward the support of the public broadcaster. All we are seeking from the public broadcaster is transparency and accountability because families in my riding and the member's riding deserve nothing less than transparency from the public broadcaster.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there was disunity in the NDP ranks again yesterday as the NDP leadership hopeful and member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou distanced himself from the NDP's stance towards a hypothetical sovereign Quebec.

While the NDP is contradicting itself on hypothetical constitutional matters, our Conservative government remains focused on the top priority of Quebeckers and all Canadians, jobs and economic growth. This is yet another worrying example of the NDP and its priorities and policies.

Now that the NDP has set a precedent by punishing two of their MPs who refused to follow the orders of their leader on the Conservative government's bid to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, will the MP for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou suffer the same fate? There seems to be a real democratic deficit over there. The NPD is not allowing MPs to vote their conscience.

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the member of Parliament for Jeanne-Le Ber posed a question to the chair of the committee on access to information, privacy and ethics. I am kind of puzzled by it because it is public record that the NDP actually presented a motion to move the committee in camera. That is public.

What I cannot understand is why the NDP is complaining that it found support for that motion.

[Points of Order, October 25th, 2011]

Just say sorry, Gerry.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is a confused group. The many contradictory positions taken this week show that the official opposition is not even coherent, let alone united. They are out of their league, and their caucus shows it through their contradictory positions on critical issues. Canadians must be wondering who really speaks for the NDP.

For example, their interim leader is calling for mandatory bilingualism of Supreme Court justices, yet the NDP House leader, one of their top lieutenants and the party's representative on the committee, supported the nominations for the two new Supreme Court justices as part of an all-party process. It is evidence that the NDP caucus is not able to stay united when times get tough.

This week, NDP spokesmen have taken contradictory stands on issues such as the merit-based selection of Supreme Court justices. This is yet another worrying example that the weak and disunited NDP is out of their league and simply not fit to govern.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of whether or not the government is listening. I want to speak about the genesis of this bill, the former Bill C-32.

The government undertook a process where we consulted broadly in major cities right across the country. We had a consultation in Peterborough, where folks came in from Toronto and other places throughout Ontario, but also in Toronto and major centres right across the country. We also received some 8,000 written submissions on the bill and considered them all.

I would hazard to say there is not a single group that has either appeared before the previous committee or in fact had interest in appearing that we did not consider its request and see some of what it was seeking to have addressed in the bill addressed.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was elected toward the end of the last Parliament and as such he may not have followed what went on at the committee. We were hearing from witnesses but unfortunately the time was restricted by the opposition parties. We wanted to meet as much as possible, get through the witness list as quickly as possible and get to the consideration of potential amendments, when opposition parties could have brought forward any amendments they had. We had some great suggestions from a number of the witnesses who brought forward some very specific technical amendments which I think should get some consideration at the committee. I hope to participate in the committee that undertakes the review of this bill, following the committee's consideration, when we get to final consideration of the bill.

There is something I want to ask the member very specifically on the bill. I think he understands the need to pass this bill. I think the Liberal Party largely understands the importance of passing this legislation. John Manley came before our committee. He is a former Liberal industry minister who actually worked on amendments to the bill. I have some sage advice for all members: there is no such thing as a perfect copyright bill; there are too many competing interests. John Manley said not to throw out the good in pursuit of the perfect.

Does the member agree with that?

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is written entirely technological neutral and that is important.

The member discussed a few items. I believe she touched a little on the issue of royalties and so forth. We refer to that as an iPod tax, the copying levy that her party endorses.

Part of the problem with the position of the members opposite on this and the reason why digital locks are so important is because storage of music, movies and so forth will not actually be on devices like this anymore. People will not buy them on cassettes, DVDs or CDs. I am sure members have heard of the iCloud that Apple has just launched. I am sure we have seen things like Rogers On Demand, Cogeco On Demand and Shaw On Demand. People just push the button and they have an inventory of movies.

Digital locks are absolutely imperative to be put in place so that material cannot be stolen, so that the rights holder, which is not Rogers or Shaw in most cases, is actually protected and paid for the use of that material.

That is why it is important. It is a business solution.