James Moore

[Confidentiality of Information, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what happened, and the Leader of the Opposition is not going to change the subject.

The fact is, the Leader of the Opposition is attacking western Canada when it comes to our national resources. The Premier of Alberta, the Premier of Saskatchewan and thePremier of British Columbia are calling out the Leader of the Opposition for his unwarranted attack on western Canada, on our energy industry and on the thousands of jobs it is creating across western Canada.

He should be ashamed of himself for attacking the west, dividing this country, and not even having visited the places he is attacking. It is unconscionable for someone who wants to be the prime minister of the country to be so utterly irresponsible.

[Confidentiality of Information, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what happened. The government has an obligation to protect sensitive information, and the Clerk of the Privy Council took appropriate action.

Since the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of “national embarrassments”, I am wondering when the Leader of the Opposition will apologize to western Canadians for suggesting that the strength of the western Canadian economy is a “disease” on Canada. He even admitted yesterday that he had not even been to the oil sands in western Canada.

He attacks western Canada, he attacks our energy industry, he attacks all of the west and the great work that is being done by western Canadians to contribute to Canada's national unity. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Confidentiality of Information, May 17th, 2012]

The Leader of the Opposition's version of the facts is completely false. The fact is that the government is responsible for protecting sensitive information and cabinet documents must remain secret. That is why the Clerk of the Privy Council took appropriate action to protect the public interest.

[Canadian Heritage, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the approach that is being used and the language come from an iPolitics story. That is really ridiculous. The process by which we choose people for these kinds of appointments is open and transparent. Yes, it does require that the minister and these organizations, crown corporations and agencies have an open dialogue and an ongoing conversation for the best interests of taxpayers. This process has been used for years, and we will continue to do so.

[Canadian Heritage, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the selection process for candidates for this type of position is typical and standard. It has been in place for years and will not be changed.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP can reference Bill C-38 and other things, but when we do it, it is against the rules. Anyway, whatever, that is the member for Timmins--James Bay.

The reality is, the amendments that were put forward, particularly those from the leader of the Green Party, were serious and substantive amendments, and I understand that. However, the ideas represented therein were not new. They were considered by our government and had been considered over the past two and a half years, throughout this entire process.

We certainly do respect that, but if the NDP's idea concerning debate is just ongoing, never-ending, continuous debate and members can keep putting forward amendments to change “us” to “them” and “we” to “they”, and then condemn us for not considering sometimes frivolous amendments, it is nonsense. We have been debating this for two and a half years. We have considered the ideas. They are thoughtful ideas. They are just reasonable differences of opinion with some of the amendments that were put forward by the leader of the Green Party.

It is not obstruction to say we have had two and a half years of debate, and now two years of debate on a specific piece of legislation. We have considered it. We have thought about it. We have tabled our legislation. We gave signals to Canadians in the election campaign. We put it in our throne speech. We put forward the legislation. We invited Canadians in at the front end through our consultations.

Let us just get on with it, pass this legislation and serve Canadians' interests.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member said it is not about obstruction. Right and that is why the NDP put forward one speaker for three days, 13 hours and blocked others from speaking. That is not obstruction from the NDP, but with--

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, this is about what is in the best interests of Canada, Canadian consumers, Canadian creators and their rights, needs and obligations in a digital environment.

As I said at the outset, it has been essentially 22 years since Canada has had sweeping amendments to Canada's copyright law in the way this bill proposes. We believe in a system that will best serve Canadians' interests. As I have said a number of times, individuals and organizations have come forward and spoken out in favour of this legislation for their own purposes. This is a balancing act. Certainly there are those who wish they had amendments a little different from the way our government has designed the bill, but we think we have an effective and responsible balance that will serve Canadians well into the future.

The Canadian Media Production Association, which represents thousands of jobs across the country, said it applauds the government's copyright reform. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada, which is responsible for Canada's video game industry and roughly 15,000 high paying jobs across the country, many of them in Montreal, congratulated the government on its copyright legislation. It said that it will help protect Canadian creators and that it is good public policy and is essential to our economy.

This bill is critical to the success of Canada's digital economy. It works. Let us get it done.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader does negotiate and has negotiated on these matters. He does it all the time, through two minority Parliaments and now this majority Parliament.

On the substance of what we are talking about right now, copyright, we have considered opposition voices. We did not invoke time allocation. We had stand-alone legislative committees. We brought in individual Canadians to consult on this legislation before we even drafted the bill, because we realized that in our first Parliament, in 2006-08, copyright was approached in the wrong way. We took a new approach with Bill C-32, now Bill C-11, the bill before us.

We asked Canadians at the front end what ought to constitute effective copyright reform. Those consultations came in. Tens of thousands of Canadians participated. It was an open, incredibly democratic process where Canadians could freely discuss this legislation, and we arrived at Bill C-32.

We negotiated with the opposition House leaders. The government House leader reached out to the opposition House leaders. We created a stand-alone legislative committee to debate the bill for the past two years. Call the question.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the point has been made by the Liberal Party, our party, the Green Party, and even the Bloc that if the NDP members want to have substantive debate in the House of Commons on all issues, including copyright, then they might want to be honest with themselves in terms of how they approach legislation. The NDP had its finance critic consume three days of debate in a mindless filibuster, the only purpose of which was to shut the Liberals out of the debate. That was the game the NDP played. If the NDP really wants to have substantive debate, one member of Parliament taking up 13 hours of debate, which is about equal to the time for 50 members of Parliament to speak on legislation, is not the way.

In this Parliament, that was the greatest act of games on the budget that I have seen in years. It was done by the NDP frontbench finance critic, who proudly stood in the House of Commons and played games with the budget debate, which the member for Hamilton Mountain now says is so important that we get into the details on these things. If that is the case, then why did the NDP have one member of Parliament speak for three days' worth of debate in a cynical game just to block others from having an opportunity to speak? That was the NDP approach. Before the NDP throws stones at others, the member should realize she is standing in a very large, fragile glass house.