Pablo Rodriguez

[Government Programs, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great blow to Montreal. The FrancoFolies qualified last year, but not this year. Interestingly enough, the program is the same and the written rules are the same. The FrancoFolies will be held in three weeks and they have just learned that their funding has been cut. They were told that the rules were changed a little at the last minute and someone forgot to tell them. The rules are not like a box of Cracker Jack, where you know you will get a surprise, but you do not know what it will be.

Will the Conservative stop their surprises, follow their own written rules and fund the FrancoFolies?

[Government Programs, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after failing Quebec by making drastic cuts to culture, the Conservatives are at it again with their cuts to funding for FrancoFolies de Montréal.

Do they not know about the FrancoFolies? I will explain it to them. It is one of the largest francophone music festivals in the world. It attracts 500,000 tourists every summer and makes it possible for our culture to shine throughout the world. In fact, the festival is part of Montreal's identity.

The Conservatives have already made a political choice by writing off Montreal. Is that why they have decided to no longer fund the FrancoFolies?

[Government Programs, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Conservatives' decision to slash funding for culture was diametrically opposed to Quebec values. This week they are starting all over again by cutting $1.5 million in funding for the FrancoFolies de Montreal festival.

They must really not understand Quebec at all if they are making cuts to FrancoFolies, an international gathering with extensive spinoffs that helps promote Quebec's culture internationally. It also encourages artistic exchanges among francophones from around the world. It is by far the largest francophone music festival in North America, and that is what they are cutting.

The same day, the Conservatives also cut funding for Toronto's Gay Pride Festival. The week before, they cut funding to women's groups.

No one is safe from Conservative strong-arm tactics.

The Prime Minister is attacking our artists, our festivals, francophones, women and the gay community. One cannot help but wonder who will be next.

[Firearms Registry, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support gun control.

Police officers say that the gun registry is a vital tool. They check it more than 11,000 times every day, and it costs less than the Conservatives spend on partisan government advertising.

Why is the member for Thornhill voting against gun control?

And what about the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent? She knows that Quebeckers support the gun registry, so why is she voting against gun control? Why are her other colleagues from Quebec voting against gun control?

Bill C-391 would scrap gun control and put our families, our communities and our police officers at risk.

The members for Thornhill and Louis-Saint-Laurent should listen to their constituents, stand with police officers and vote no to Bill C-391.

They need to stand up for their communities.

[Bernard Derome, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend and congratulate one of the greatest journalists and news anchors of our time, Bernard Derome.

Last night, Mr. Derome won the Hyman Solomon Award for Excellence in Public Policy Journalism.

Canadians across the country will remember all the years Bernard Derome spent behind the desk of Radio-Canada's Téléjournal and his coverage of the most pivotal events of the past few decades.

And how can we forget election nights, being glued to our sets watching Bernard Derome, hanging on his every word and waiting for that fateful moment to hear him say what he said every election night, “Radio-Canada predicts that, if the voting trend continues, the next government will be formed by—”. Then we would hear cries of joy or sorrow, depending on the results announced.

Bernard Derome has always been the epitome of journalistic integrity, professionalism and discipline. We all see him as a role model for anyone aspiring to a career in journalism.

Congratulations and thanks to Bernard.

[Juno Awards, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great opportunity to attend the Juno Awards this weekend in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It was extraordinary.

I would like to congratulate the winners, the nominees and the artists who participated in this great event. We are all extremely proud of them.

The Juno Awards are a wonderful opportunity to reward the work of our artists, who make Canada so vibrant. That is the case of Michael Bublé, Bryan Adams, Andrea Lindsay, Metric, Alain Lefebvre, Bell Orchestre and many others. Thank you for giving us such a high calibre of music.

I assure the House that I will remember the great performances during the gala and the smiles on the faces of the winners. I will remember the energy at the Mile One Centre and on George Street and, yes, I will remember St. John's Airport which became a second home for a day, but it does not take away the beauty of the province and the warmth of its people.

St. John's is an amazing place to host the Junos. It is an amazing place for music. The Rock rocks.

[Access to Information, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a report has revealed that Canadian Heritage received an F on its access to information report card. The report shows that requests take an average of 107 days because the minister wants to control everything. An F is the worst grade you can get. It means fail. It is terrible.

Can the minister tell us why he got this grade? Is it (a) because he thinks he is above the law; (b) because he is incompetent; or (c) because he has something to hide?

What is the answer?

[Committees of the House, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we all feel that something needs to be done, and soon.

We also feel that creators need to be remunerated and that we need to support them. We are not against the principle of extending royalties to certain electronic devices. We need to decide which ones and how they will be defined.

I would like to bring my colleague back to earth. He is talking about urgency and he seems to be saying that the motion will change everything. That is not true. This motion aims at nothing more than scoring political points when the real debate lies elsewhere. That debate needs to happen in order for change to occur.

Can my colleague tell me what exactly would change for artists if we passed this motion here in the House tomorrow afternoon? Is this motion not just a petty political game?

[Committees of the House, April 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on at least one thing, that is, we cannot trust the Conservative government when it comes to culture.

As I said over and over in my speech, our artists must be paid for what they create. We all agree on that, except the Conservative government. However, a motion that says more or less nothing about more or less everything does not serve this debate. On the contrary, it can be counterproductive.

I agree that we must work together. There is no need to worry, for my colleague and I get along just fine, like the rest of my colleagues here. So we will work together—the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals—to change the legislation and ensure that our artists are paid.

[Committees of the House, April 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I have to say that my colleague is out to lunch.

I said earlier that the motion has the merit of opening a debate. That is its merit. It has the merit that we can debate it. Now, the problem with her motion is that the member simply wants to score political points. There is absolutely nothing to this motion—the government does not have to follow it. But it gives her the chance to attack the government and the current system by talking about taxes.

As a point of background, we are in complete disagreement with the Conservatives when it comes to taxes. We consider it a levy. I said that three times. I am sorry that my colleague did not listen to my speech, but I said three times that there is a huge difference between a tax and a levy. A tax is directed to the consolidated revenue fund and the government can use it for its priorities. But a levy, such as that on CDs or that which would be on an iPod, would be distributed to the artists. I understand this very well.