Dean Del Mastro

[April 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the comments made by the member are borderline. They are ridiculous and certainly inflammatory. The member alleges that the Minister of Industry has illegally downloaded songs on to his iPod with absolutely no evidence. I would guarantee the minister has paid for the music on his iPod, because he is a pretty upstanding guy and he understands these things.

This is nothing but a smoke show. Where was this passion for artists when we brought in Bill C-61 in the last Parliament for copyright? If the same members who stood tonight in favour of the iPod tax or the tax on digital memory would have stood up for copyright to protect the artists that the member now claims to support, we would have had a regime to protect them, to protect intellectual property and to protect cultural creations like music. However, the member did not do that, neither did her party and neither did the other opposition parties. They used it as a wedge issue.

Now she stands up and says that she is here to support artists. She is not here to support artists. She voted in favour of a tax. All the opposition parties voted this evening in favour of a tax, a tax on digital memory, a tax on iPods, a tax on PDAs, a tax on anything that stores digital memory.

Here is some news for the people at home. If people have devices that not only store photos, but also store music, 100% of the opposition members think those people should pay a tax for the music, even if they bought it for photos. However, that is their solution because they like taxes. They think they can wave a wand over things and make money appear, and it does not harm anyone. We could take millions and millions of dollars from Canadian consumers, create a great fund to hand out and take credit for, but it would not harm anyone. It is nonsense. When will those members stand up for consumers?

Instead of making outrageous allegations against the Minister of Industry, why does she not talk to the consumers in her riding and find out how much more they think they should have to pay for these devices. What do they think would be fair? It is nonsense and it is ridiculous. She should get in touch with her constituents. I can guarantee her that they do not support an increase in tax on iPods and all forms of digital memory devices.

Let us put it this way. I will give the member the opportunity to apologize for the outrageous allegations she made against the Minister of Industry.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. I would say that I am disappointed but not surprised that the NDP will be voting against jobs and economic growth for Canadians.

However, I will give the NDP some credit. It has become a liberal think-tank, after all. Principles that are put forward by the NDP within a few short months become Liberal policy. I point to the NDP's platform on EI. Philosophically I did not agree with it, but the Liberal Party saw fit to adapt it this weekend.

After the thinkers' conference, the leader of the Liberal Party came back and endorsed the NDP's corporate tax plan, which would cost Canada jobs and economic growth. In fact, if we consider the KPMG report that was issued this week on competitiveness and we see that Canada has now climbed to second overall in competitiveness, it demonstrates the success of advantage Canada as a plan for Canada to continue down this path of being a jobs and economic growth leader.

We know that Canada is leading all of its trading partners in economic growth and job creation, and obviously the prospects of the Canadian economy are much better than the prospects of our trading partners. If being in first place is not good enough to support the government's economic agenda, in which place would the member like to see us?

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

I am pleased to hear that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence is interested in what I have to say.

This government has moved forward where other governments have failed. We have moved forward where every Liberal government, including the one in which the member for Eglinton—Lawrence served, failed.

They had opportunities. While the community was celebrating, healing, coming together, moving forward and celebrating the fact that they were Canadian citizens of equal standing after the prime minister of the day had apologized, then Liberal MP Sergio Marchi came out and berated that apology. He said that it did not matter. He said that there had to be an apology in the House of Commons. Successive Liberal governments, including the one in which the member for Eglinton—Lawrence served, did nothing about it.

Once I was older and knew about this, I often talked to my grandfather about coming to Canada. He grew up in a place called Carpino and he came to Canada in 1927. He arrived at Pier 21 in Halifax after a very difficult trip. He lived through this. He was in Canada for it and was proud to be Canadian.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, a bill that, when it was before committee, certainly stirred up strong emotions on all sides. When the bill was up for second reading I rose from my seat and voted against the bill because, while the bill has good intent, it is actually a very poor bill.

I am pleased to speak to an issue that concerns one of Canada's largest cultural groups. The last census indicated that there were about 1.4 million Canadians of Italian descent. I do not have an English name but I have never looked at myself as anything but a Canadian. I suppose I am a Canadian of Italian descent but I always object to the title “Italian Canadian”.

Italians were among the earliest Europeans to migrate to this continent. They have unquestionably contributed significantly to Canada and to North America if we look to our partners to the south in the United States. Americans of Italian descent have contributed significantly to that country. We can go back as far as 1881 when there were literally cascades of Italians immigrating to Canada and they were contributing toward massive construction projects, like the Canadian Pacific Railway.

This year will mark the 70th anniversary of the Italian internment in Canada. I would like to take members back to when Italy declared war on the Allies in 1940. The prime minister of the day ordered the internment of hundreds of Italian Canadians identified as enemy aliens. The prime minister invoked the War Measures Act known as the Defence of Canada Regulations. Today we look at the War Measures Act, which was repealed, by the way, by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1988, the same Brian Mulroney who apologized to Canadians of Italian descent in 1990. I will get into that in a little while.

However, we look at that time and we look at the prime minister and Parliament invoking the War Measures Act at that time and wonder how they could do that. How could they have done that to Canadian citizens? The government also passed an order in council calling for the registration of all persons of Italian birth and for the confiscation of enemy aliens' property.

Despite the financial hardship and the shame suffered by some of their countrymen, hundreds of Italian Canadians enlisted in the Canadian armed forces because they felt the war against Fascism and Nazism was justified. The most decorated veteran from my city was a Canadian of Italian descent. He actually went to war serving in Italy on a battlefield where he met family members on the other side, but felt passionately enough about the cause to fight for Canada. It is an incredible story. There can be no doubt that Canadians of Italian descent have made enormous contributions to our nation and these historical facts constitute one of the saddest and most dramatic chapters in the annals of Canadian history.

As I said, the hon. member who brought forward Bill C-302, Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, in relation to this dark chapter in our nation's history, has done so I believe with good intent, but it does not change the fact that it is a very bad bill and divides Canadians of Italian descent. In fact it looks backward at a time in Canadian history, but not backward enough to see that the apology that was offered some 20 years ago had a very profound effect on the Italian community.

I just want to reference something from a friend of mine, Annamarie Castrilli, who was the president of the National Congress of Italian Canadians. She was instrumental in obtaining the courageous admission of an apology by the then prime minister, Brian Mulroney. She wrote to me and said, “As you know, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the internment. To commemorate this, I have been asked to write a book which deals with what led up to the apology and the circumstances that existed in 1940. I am one of only two commissioners left who actually talked and corresponded with internees. There is only one left to my knowledge. The book is an analysis of the situation in Canada during World War II and the noble act of one prime minister where all else had failed. Whatever else may be said of Brian Mulroney, this was a significant achievement that set the record straight and profoundly changed the life of a community”.

She goes on to include a copy of the speech given by the then prime minister, Brian Mulroney.

This bill calls for an apology on behalf of Parliament, the Government of Canada and the Canadian people. The problem is that it suggests that there was an injustice, that the government acted illegally. We can look back at that time and ask how they could have done this. How could we actually have a law like the War Measures Act in place in a country like Canada that believes in rights and freedoms? We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was a Conservative prime minister in 1958, I believe, who brought in the bill of rights protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We look back and wonder how that was possible but, unfortunately, it was not illegal. The then Liberal government acted within the law in enacting the War Measures Act. Bill C-302 calls for restitution to Italian Canadians in the form of educational projects that provide information on Italian Canadian history and promote ethnic and racial harmony. However, it also opens the door for unlimited liability from the Crown to persons who would seek damages from the Crown.

The member referenced other apologies. I acknowledge that we did have an apology for the Chinese head tax. I know that an injustice is an injustice and a crime is a crime, but the scale of what happened to Chinese Canadians or Canadians from the Chinese community occurred over decades of discrimination by the Crown. It was profound. It was unquestionably a sad time in our history. I know that we as Canadians are proud that we have moved beyond that but the scale of it was much larger. However, an agreement was arrived at.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again in the House, this time to address Bill C-444. In reflection, I want to make a couple of comments before I get into the body of the text of my speech about the cultural identity of the various regions within Canada.

I do not think it is fair to the folks in St. John's, Newfoundland, for example, to say that they are not culturally distinct from Calgary, Alberta, or that Victoria, British Columbia does not have its own cultural identity that might be somewhat different from Peterborough. It is a strength in Canada that we have all of these culturally distinct regions and that we all come together under one flag and one nation.

We certainly saw in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. We did not just see our athletes dominate, which by the way was spectacular. We also saw our artists. We also saw Canadians celebrating in the streets. We saw a collective strength of a nation, the likes of which I have never seen. That collective strength is supported by regions of the country that are as diverse from one another as one could possibly imagine. However, they have one thing in common, and that is a love of this nation.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to comment on matters relevant to the regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications activities in Canada. Given proposals contained in Bill C-444, I believe we must take the time to consider the impact they would have on Canadian consumers, including those in Quebec.

We strongly believe that creating additional regulatory frameworks, as proposed under Bill C-444, could only lead to extraordinary confusion and complication. Then innovation and competitiveness in Canada's vital communications would be stifled to the detriment of Canadian consumers and the businesses that serve them.

Given the current challenges confronting the broadcasting industry, the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications, such a division of responsibilities risks introducing complexities and inefficiencies into the system that could hamper the competitiveness and the ability of companies to respond to new market and technological developments.

Let me elaborate on this point. We are all aware of the fact that Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems are in the midst of a fundamental transformation. We have talked about that on other matters before the House today. Important changes are being brought on by the rapid adoption of digital technologies, which are modifying Canada's communications landscape in unprecedented ways.

Established companies are facing competition from unexpected players. Lines between industries, companies, devices, platforms and content are blurring and, in some cases, completely disappearing. More and more, these developments are allowing Canadians to take greater control and participate actively in the creation and distribution of diverse Canadian content.

The rise of digital networks and platforms is also dissolving the territorial and technical boundaries that formerly limited Canadian companies, including Quebec firms, from reaching and exploiting global audiences. These very positive developments must not be restrained by additional layers of rules and regulations.

Clearly, the future economic potential of our communications companies is bright. Innovative businesses are responding with cutting-edge ideas designed to meet new consumer behaviours and expectations. We must avoid measures that could prevent them from harnessing the potential of the digital technologies that will contribute even more to Canadian competitiveness.

Canadian and Quebec entrepreneurs recognize that unnecessary complication brought on by jurisdictional splitting and the duplication of regulations in all likelihood would hinder their future growth and competitiveness. In question period, I had a number of questions from the hon. member from Quebec who spoke just previously. I quoted Mr. Pierre Karl Péladeau from Quebecor. I indicated that we as a government believed that Canadians wanted less regulation, not more.

Here is what this leading Quebec business person and leading broadcaster in Quebec had to say about the equivalent of a CRTC in Quebec. He said, “A Quebec equivalent of the CRTC would complicate, not simplify things. My position is fairly clear. I believe the solution is the deregulation of the industry”. That is what a gentleman from Quebec in the industry had to say. It is in the complete opposite direction of the Bloc's Bill C-444.

Adding complexity to regulation, which the passing of Bill C-444 would most certainly accomplish, would only hinder the capacity of our industries to meet the promising opportunities ahead to further develop and prosper and continue to offer Canadians a diversity of content and service choices.

Our government, which has a record of putting consumers first, strongly believes that fragmenting regulatory control and supervision would not be serving Canadians, including Quebeckers, well. In fact, they would be poorly served. Such action would result in additional cost and uncertainty for consumers across the country. This is of great concern to us and that is why we are formally opposed to Bill C-444.

Just previous to the debate on this bill, we talked about an issue, which I and the minister have termed as the "itax". It may be the simplest way to convey what we talked about a bit earlier. It is the recognition of digital technologies in the ever emerging landscape. We have to acknowledge that there is tremendous platform change occurring not only in this country but globally.

Today we live in an era where every person in the House, every person from coast to coast to coast in this nation could become a broadcaster if they wanted. All they need is a camera and a home computer. It is easy. That is the context in which we live.

Trying to put barriers around things and trying to put constructs up like what we built in the sixties, simply will not work in a modern media context, in a modern broadcast environment. The complexities and regulations that the bill would seek to put in place upon the province of Quebec would hinder, not assist, the Quebec cultural economy and artists in Quebec.

Everyone in the House can acknowledge that the cultural sector in Canada has really hit its stride, whether those artists are from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, either of the territories, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, it does not matter. Canada has hit its stride culturally. We are leading the world when it comes to cultural innovations and creativity.

I am so proud of Canadian artists. What they do not need is a new regulatory body that would seek to hinder and restrict them with new regulations that would simply seek to rebuild something that existed from the past.

The Great Wall of China at one point was probably a very effective tool to keep invading armies on the one side, while those on the other side were safe. The Great Wall of China would not be very effective in defending a nation these days. The new technologies that have come in demonstrate that the walls of the past are simply very easily overcome.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the intervention from the hon. member. He actually touched on a number of things on which I would just like to ask his opinion.

He talked about the Canadian content laws and Canadian radio. I would agree with him that that assisted Canadian artists in getting their names out there, getting their materials out there. He talked about the copying levy that was placed on CDs. I would agree with him.

I would also agree with the hon. member that the illegal redistribution and the pirated copies that are going on in this country is wrong. We have to put a stop to it. Creators deserve to be paid for what they are creating and that kind of illegal redistribution has to be stopped.

However, there is a bigger issue here. He talked about the convergence. I appreciate that the member understands that technologies are in fact converging, but the walls that we used to construct in Canada to create a distinct market are really becoming things of the past because we live in a global environment now. Any Canadian, his son, my nieces and nephews, all of them can access whatever they want, whenever they want. That is the power of the mouse. Borders do not exist, so we are going to have to take a look at it.

That is why I am saying this is a complex issue and it cannot be solved with one-off solutions. We need to look at it in a holistic fashion.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to believe that Canadians would think this tax is fair. I think all of its effects on the Canadian economy would be negative, but then again, what do they have to worry about? I am being shouted down by members who voted against Canada's economic action plan, which is actually driving a stronger economy. What do they care about economics?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

I encourage those members who are shouting me down to go out into the streets of their respective constituencies and shout at the top of their lungs that they believe in a $25 iPod tax. I do not think the majority of their constituents are going to agree with them.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if one buys a dozen eggs and takes six out, there are six left. If one buys a dozen eggs and breaks six, there are six left. The member is saying that if one puts a $25 tax on an iPod, that is a tax; but if one puts a $25 levy on an iPod, that is not a tax any more.

It is still coming out of people's pockets. It is a tax. It would be a tax because it would be imposed by the government.

I know all the hon. members across the House do not agree with me on this, but they are clearly out of touch with Canadians. As I said, are they willing to talk about the forest or are they just going to talk about a couple of trees?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the member from Quebec who moved this motion specifically indicated, a number of these formats, loosely translated, are dying media to some extent. They are a media that are no longer in the mainstream. In fairness to the legislation, it did not make sense to go backwards. When some media are already fading in terms of popularity, what is the point in undoing something that is already there?

However, I do think we are forward-looking. Our position on this is forward-looking because we are looking at the convergence of media, the convergence of platforms and the convergence of how devices work. When I got my first BlackBerry, it did not do a lot of what this BlackBerry here does. That is the way technology is going.

Taxes like this, which the hon. members think are simple are not simple. They are incredibly complex. To put a tax on media and a tax on advances in digital devices and digital technology is going backwards, not forwards.