Pablo Rodriguez

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. It is a very complex, topical debate that goes far beyond the context and scope of the motion.

We are in the midst of a transition to a digital economy, which affects culture in a big way. It is a topic we are faced with every day, not only in the House of Commons, but also in the business world, in broadcasting, and in film studios, to name a few. We could talk about it even more, if this government would be more open about the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, which concerns all of us. We know our government colleagues very well, and they like to have full control over access to information. That said, let us get back to the matter at hand.

The Liberal Party has always believed and still strongly believes that our artists, especially our creators, must be paid and remunerated for their work. Our party has always been recognized as a reliable partner for Quebec and Canadian artists. This is the case because we recognize the value and wealth of the contributions made by our artists and cultural industries.

Our party fought back when the Conservatives decided to eliminate various cultural programs in 2008 for ideological reasons. I can assure the House that we will continue to protect what our artists do to enhance our culture with courage, innovation and creativity.

This is why I agree in principle with my colleague's motion. Clearly, our creators should be compensated for the valuable work they do. Who would agree that they should not be compensated for what they create, except maybe our Conservative colleagues?

The purpose of the motion before us is not to create a new law or a new tax. Its purpose is to update the current law, because there is already a system of levies on recording media such as blank CDs to account for copies. That already exists. Why should the new technology that is replacing CDs not be subject to the same law?

The argument we have heard from the Conservatives today makes no sense. Unlike them, we know that this motion has nothing to do with a new tax; it has to do with a levy on electronic devices. That levy would be redistributed directly to artists.

My colleague should know that when a tax is collected, the money goes into the government's consolidated revenue fund and can then be put toward government priorities. In this case, we are talking about a levy that goes directly to creators and artists. The government does not get one cent of the money.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his parliamentary secretary cannot tell the difference between a tax and a levy, and they are hoping that the public will not be able to either.

I have said it before and I will say it again: our artists should be compensated for their work. They amply deserve to be compensated. It is logical, fair and essential to maintaining a strong, vital cultural milieu. The cultural industry generates $40 billion in revenue and creates more than 600,000 jobs in Canada. Culture makes a significant contribution not only to our economy but to our everyday lives. Can we even imagine a day without culture?

We must support our artists by ensuring that our legislative framework reflects this new reality. My colleague's motion talks about redefining that framework. Unfortunately, though, this motion has serious problems in terms of process and content.

With respect to content, it is clear that the motion is not specific enough, particularly when it comes to the digital devices targeted by the new levy. What exactly are we talking about? We know that it would apply to iPods because people use them primarily to listen to music, but would it also apply to the BlackBerry and iPhone?

That is a good question. Will it also apply to home computers? In short, will it apply to all devices that have a memory and can record and play back music? We think it is absolutely critical that we differentiate between these devices based on their primary use. The primary use of a device that will be subject to the levy is a new element we have to consider in this debate.

This matter deserves to be taken seriously, but a motion that does not take this distinction into account will not help. However, I want to say that the work that went into this motion is not for nothing. It reminds us that we still have a lot to do to deal with current problems that need solutions. That is what I wanted to say about the content of the motion.

With respect to the process my colleague has chosen, with all due respect, I must say that it was somewhat ill-advised. For this discussion to be productive, it must take place within the larger context of the ongoing debate on copyright. Many have said that the government is behind when it comes to updating that kind of legislation. My NDP colleague mentioned that too.

The Conservatives believe that it is more important to advance their ideological agenda than to help our artists. We all know that. The Copyright Act is in dire need of amendment, but we have to deal with it comprehensively. We cannot do it by playing with motions that will not end up changing anything. Nor can we dissect every little part of the Copyright Act and turn all of those parts into motions to win political points.

Unfortunately, this motion is incomplete. It comes at a bad time and in the worst way. In fact, it could be counterproductive and hinder our current objectives. The Conservatives have taken advantage of this in order to spread falsehoods about the end goal. The Bloc Québécois motion—and we heard this again today—has allowed the Conservatives to completely shift the debate to make it an issue of taxes. We all know that is not the case.

The Conservatives are obsessed with the word tax. They are unable to distinguish between a tax and a levy. The motion as presented has given the government the opportunity to talk about taxes. This will hurt our artists in future debates. The current debate will not change anything, but this motion may hurt future debates.

We must quickly come up with something concrete. I invite my colleague and her party and all the other hon. members to work with us in order to come up with a system. It could be the one proposed in the motion, but with some clarifications. We want a system that will enable our artists to be paid for their work. It is a matter of common sense, justice and equality.

Instead of debating a motion that, even if it were accepted, would not change anything and that simply allows the government to make speeches day after day about taxes, why not work together to amend the legislation when the time comes? That way, our artists will get what they deserve and will be paid for their creations.

[Genie Awards, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television on its 30th anniversary of the Genie Awards, which has served to celebrate and affirm Canada's national cinema.

During last night's Genie Awards, 21 Genies were presented, recognizing the excellence of Canadian creativity and talent in the film industry.

I would like to mention that the film Polytechnique, about the terrible massacre of 14 young women at the École Polytechnique in 1989, won eight awards. Stories like this one, which have left deep scars on us all, need to be told, and film is often the best way to tell them.

I want to congratulate the creators and actors and everyone who worked on Polytechnique, as well as all the Genie Award winners.

As Canadians from across the country tuned in to watch the 30th annual Genie Awards, we again witnessed Canada at its best.

Congratulations to all the winners and to all the nominees.

Congratulations, everyone.

[12th Jutra Awards Gala, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the 12th Jutra awards gala, a not to be missed celebration of the Quebec cinema, was held yesterday.

I want to congratulate all the winners and mention the huge success of the films J'ai tué ma mère/I Killed my Mother and Polytechnique. These two movies reflect the new generation of Quebec creators, who are inspired by the province's rich cinematographic heritage, while also showing daring, humanism and sensitivity. Because of this, they have earned tremendous recognition, both at home and abroad.

With their ambition and ability to succeed at the international level, without compromising the quality of their art, they are to a credit to Quebec's creators, artists and artisans. When Quebec shines at the world level, all of Canada also shines with it.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to reiterate our support to Quebec artists, and to congratulate all the winners and nominees at the 12th Jutra awards gala.

I am going to conclude by asking the Conservative government to pay greater attention to Quebec culture. It is a hotbed of innovation and deserves the government's support.

[Broadcasting Industry, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to CBC/Radio-Canada, the minister is saying now that this was a CRTC decision. He is washing his hands of it. But when the government does not like a decision by the CRTC, it does not hesitate to say so and even change the decision. That says it all.

Hubert Lacroix said he was disappointed, staggered, furious. He said this would even force the corporation to reduce its programming and services.

Instead of washing his hands of it, could the minister tell us where CBC/Radio-Canada should make cuts? Should it cut jobs? Should it cut regional stations? Should it make cuts everywhere?

[Broadcasting Industry, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the ruling handed down yesterday by the CRTC on fees totally excludes CBC/Radio-Canada. We all know that its television budgets are heavily dependent on commercial revenues, which have been declining for all broadcasters. Still, there will be one rule for the private sector and another for CBC/Radio-Canada. The private networks will be able to negotiate a fair value for their signals, but not CBC/Radio-Canada. The private networks will get additional revenue streams, but not CBC/Radio-Canada.

The minister thinks this is all right and says nothing. Why?

[Afghanistan, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is kind of ridiculous. They made an announcement but have not provided any details.

The House has the right to know. Canadians have the right to know. What is Justice Iacobucci's mandate? What are his powers? Most importantly, will his mandate enable him to release information about the torture cases he finds in the documents? If not, then what is the point?

Why will they not answer these questions? Are they afraid? Do they already know what the judge will find?

[Afghanistan, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the government has asked Justice Iacobucci to conduct an inquiry. Last time, the government completely ignored his recommendations and shelved his report. The last time the government ordered a public inquiry, it took six months to get the process up and running.

What will happen this time? How long will it take? We want to know when the inquiry is going to begin, how long it will last, and when we can expect the results. These are simple questions, and we want answers.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-444, tabled by my colleague from Repentigny.

This bill has to do with the structure of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.

Before going any further, I would like to point out that the CRTC's mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. The CRTC uses the objectives in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to guide its policy decisions. It is very important to understand that.

The CRTC plays an important role in protecting and promoting Canadian content. To quote Ghandi:

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

That is exactly the role of the CRTC, to ensure that the different cultures are fairly represented on radio and television. It protects Canadian culture from other more imposing cultures—in particular that of our neighbours to the south—but it also aims to reflect the face of Canada and the regional diversities within the country.

The CRTC plays an important role in protecting culture, and I believe that we must strengthen the role and mandate of the CRTC, not weaken it in the way my colleague and friend from Repentigny proposes.

In fact, I do not see how splitting up the CRTC would strengthen its mandate. Would five, seven or even ten regional or provincial CRTCs do a better job than the current CRTC?

For these reasons and many others, I will vote against the bill tabled by the hon. member for Repentigny.

I will do him a favour and make a suggestion. I know he has worked very hard on his bill. However, rather than presenting it in this form, I invite him to take our approach and to concentrate on the challenges facing the protection and promotion of Canadian content. Naturally, that includes Quebec content which, we must say, is absolutely extraordinary.

Our society is changing at a dizzying pace. Everything is moving very quickly. We are moving into a digital economy, which has an impact on just about everything, and most certainly on culture. The means of telecommunications are evolving at lightning speed, as is broadcasting.

We must react quickly to all these changes, anticipate them, and even take a leadership role in them.

With all due respect, I do not see how this bill will help achieve these objectives.

I would like to make another important point.

I have had the opportunity to meet people from just about everywhere in Quebec and I have yet to be told that this bill is a priority or that it is a step in the right direction that will deal with future challenges.

As the heritage critic, I have been able to travel to all regions of Canada to address the matter of culture.

I do it every time I have the opportunity. Just last week, I went to Île Perrault and visited the Pointe-du-Moulin museum. I also went to Chicoutimi, or I should say Saguenay, to Quebec City, to Sherbrooke and to other places. I met with artists, broadcasters, producers, people who spend every day of their lives working in the arts and culture sector. They all told me about the importance of reinforcing that sector. For example, they told me about the importance of increasing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts, which plays an extraordinary role and has great credibility. Projects are evaluated by peers. There is unanimity, both in Canada and in Quebec, about the need to increase the budget of the Canada Council of the Arts. I am sure my colleague agrees with me on that.

People, not only across the country but also across Quebec, told me about the importance of bringing back programs that were cut by the Conservatives and that played a crucial role for our cultural institutions. I heard a lot about that in Quebec City, as well as in Montreal and in the various regions. I heard about that, but not necessarily about my colleague's bill, even though I appreciate the importance it has for him. I did not hear once about this bill. People told me about the Canada Council of the Arts, about restoring programs that were cut, about the importance of continuing to support the CBC because it plays a crucial role in the various regions of Quebec and of Canada.

Consider the role of Radio-Canada in francophone communities outside Quebec. In the regions of Quebec, Radio-Canada's role is absolutely essential. People talked to me about that. Unfortunately for my colleague, no one talked to me about the bill before us. We have to ask ourselves the following questions. Will the bill that would split up the CRTC make it possible to meet the challenges I was referring to earlier? Will it help us meet the challenges stemming from the government's decision to deregulate the telecommunications sector? In my opinion, it is clear that the answer is no. Not only does the CRTC need to be split up, but it needs to be given more power to intervene. It needs to have the necessary muscle to make decisions and apply them.

I agree that Quebec has its own unique characteristics. I am from Quebec and I am proud to be a Quebecker. There are also challenges common to all our artists, creators and broadcasters. There are challenges common to Quebec artists, artisans and creators and their counterparts in Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia. That does not detract from Quebec's unique characteristics that we recognize and will continue to defend. These characteristics have to be taken into account. The current system does that and will continue to do so.

In Quebec, the cultural sector is absolutely fascinating. It is vibrant. Real treasures are being created in Quebec, as they are elsewhere. We have to support our creators and artists. The CRTC plays an important role in doing that.

Earlier, I invited my colleague from Repentigny to join us in finding common solutions to the challenges raised by the economy of the future and by the dizzying pace of change. Similarly, I invite him to continue to fight against the ideological cuts made by the Conservative government. I am talking about the brutal cuts to the programs that are essential to our artists. As I was saying, I have toured Canada and Quebec.

I invite my colleague to fight with us to reinstate these programs in order to strengthen Canada's culture.

[International Solidarity, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the earthquakes that rocked Haiti and Chile in the past two months reminded us just how fragile everything is and how it can all be turned upside down from one moment to the next. They also reminded us of the importance of international solidarity in such tragic times.

Natural disasters strike without warning and can be merciless. When we work together, we reaffirm the dignity of human life in the face of nature's brute force.

Canada has a special role to play in helping its neighbours in the Americas, and I would like to take this opportunity to reassure our friends, our Chilean and Haitian brothers and sisters and their family members living here, that they can count on our unfailing support in these difficult times.

We stepped up for Haiti and Chile, and this House will always find a way to set aside its differences in times of crisis because, as a people, we know that there is a time for debate and a time for unity in the face of adversity. Chileans and Haitians know that they can count on our unfailing support.

Take heart; we are standing with them.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between January 1 and 31, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?