House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 60% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 31st, 2011
With regard to advertising by the Department of Western Economic Diversification or its agencies: (a) what was the total amount of money spent by each department since January 1, 2009, in multi-cultural targeted print, radio, television and web-based media; (b) what was the exact placement of each ad purchase; and (c) what was the target demographic of each advertisement?
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 31st, 2011
With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (d) did the government request an analysis of the different ways of compensating artists for private copying and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (e) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact as far as fair dealing is concerned and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (f) did the Department of Canadian Heritage put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (g) did Industry Canada put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (h) with respect to the recommendations put forward by the Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, (i) by what process were the recommendations adopted, (ii) have other changes been made by parties other than the departments, (iii) did the ministers make changes to the Bill which had not been proposed by their respective departments, (iv) in relation to question (h)(i), what are these changes, (v) for every clause in the Bill, which department proposed the change, (vi) for every clause in the Bill, which minister proposed the change first, (vii) for every clause in the Bill, which minister gave his support; (i) did the government request an analysis of the statutory damages and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (j) with respect to the legal analyses, (i) which ones were done to determine if the Bill complied with the standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty adopted in Geneva in 1996, (ii) what were the results of these analyses, (iii) what were the recommendations of these analyses, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department conducted these analyses, (vii) on what date were these analyses requested, (viii) on what date were these analyses submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these analyses submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analyses after there were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read the analyses after there were submitted; (k) was the Bill reviewed by Canadian Heritage employees and, if so, (i) did they make comments or criticisms or ask questions about it, (ii) what are these questions, criticisms or comments made by Canadian Heritage representatives, (iii) did the minister or a member of his staff respond to these questions or comments, (iv) what was their response to these questions or criticisms; and (l) with respect to piracy, (i) which studies were done to determine if the Bill can put an end to piracy, (ii) what are the results of these studies, (iii) what are the recommendations put forward by these studies, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department made these studies, (vii) on what date were these studies requested, (viii) on what date were these studies submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these studies submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read these studies after they were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read these studies after they were submitted?
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 31st, 2011
With regard to the Applicant’s Guide for the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: (a) what exact formula is used to determine the funding amount a publisher may receive, as mentioned in section 6.1 of the Guide, and is there a formula for the adjustments according to circulation volume, circulation method, type of periodical and audience and, if so, what is the formula; (b) why are farm publications the only ones not subject to the funding cap of $1.5 million per year, as indicated in section 6.3 of the Guide, and which periodicals qualify for this exception; and (c) what percentage constitutes “majority owned and controlled by Canadians” as mentioned in section 3.1 of the Guide, and is there a difference between this percentage and the one prescribed by the Income Tax Act and, if so, what are the reasons for this difference?
Democratic Representation Act December 16th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I invite the hon. member to show some trust. Just because the bill is bad and sets Quebec back does not mean that it is an attack on Quebec and all Quebeckers.
I believe that this bill sets Quebec back in terms of representation simply because the bill is ill-advised. This does not mean that we have it in for Quebeckers. I think the Conservatives simply did not do their work properly.
That being said and given that the bill has a negative effect on Quebec's representation, are we currently working on an amendment that will at least give Quebec the number of seats corresponding to its proportional representation?
Will the hon. member work with us to pass a bill that will strengthen and improve the Conservative bill so that it is more favourable to Quebec?
Situation in Haiti December 13th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague a very specific question about the current political crisis and he is talking about the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan is not a response to Haiti's democratic crisis. The Marshall plan is a medium- and long-term solution, while the current political crisis is real and immediate. I would simply like to know if the member has solutions for overcoming Haiti's current democratic, political and constitutional crisis.
Situation in Haiti December 13th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech which, in my opinion, was more a series of questions than an actual speech.
He referred to the Hansard, which he read just before arriving for the debate. I would like to know which document he was referring to because had he carefully read the debates that occurred just before he arrived, he would have noted that not only did the member from Bourassa move a motion for an emergency debate, but he also provided the government with various options. Naturally, it is not up to us today, as we speak, to determine what the government will decide to do and what Haiti must do. At present, we are making suggestions and my colleague from Bourassa made many. Quite a few others were made by various colleagues.
Therefore, I will return the question to my colleague. He had many questions. But does he have suggestions about what should be done with respect to the current electoral process? How can the crisis be resolved?
Situation in Haiti December 13th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. As he said, there is a crisis of confidence. In a way, the international community has to prove itself much like the Haitian institutions that are in place. Haiti has survived too many crises and has had too many problems related to democracy and the electoral process. This type of mistrust is therefore normal. We must show that we are there not to act as a substitute for anyone but to work hand in hand with Haitian partners and institutions.
I think that the example set by the NGOs is excellent. I had the opportunity to go to Haiti for the first time in 1994. I worked in international development for almost 10 years. I would say that the advantage that the NGOs have is their close relationship with the Haitian social activists, public and leaders, which allows them to develop a bond of trust. We can make big promises and contribute as much money as we want but it will not be enough without a relationship of trust. We have to start by building credibility and trust and the rest will follow.
Situation in Haiti December 13th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Major funding is needed, but beyond that, monitoring and reporting mechanisms are also necessary.
Haiti will never be the same again after the terrible earthquake in January. Haiti needs to be reimagined. Our approach to Haiti needs to be reimagined to instil confidence not just in the Haitian people, but also in the international community. The Haitian people need to know that the international community is there at its side like a brother, but at the same time, that the promised money is being distributed effectively. That requires significant involvement by the Haitian authorities and Haitian civil society.
In closing, there will have to be better coordination on the part of the various stakeholders, whether we are talking about foreign countries or NGOs on the ground.
Situation in Haiti December 13th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, for this important initiative. He has become a major expert on the situation in Haiti and, for that reason and many others, he is greatly respected and admired by Haitians, not only here in Canada but also in Haiti.
I would also like to recognize the work that the hon. member for Papineau has done for the Haitian community in Montreal. The hon. member for Papineau, the hon. member for Bourassa and I have many people from Haiti in our ridings. These are people of whom we are very fond.
I must say that I am somewhat familiar with Haiti having been there several times since 1994. It is a country for which I have a great deal of love and respect.
This emergency debate is completely necessary given the current situation in Haiti. We must gain a better understanding of and better define what is happening in Haiti. We must assess what the international community and Canada are doing on the ground, but we must also work together to determine areas in which we can improve.
What more can we do for Haiti, a country that has suffered so much and with which we have a very personal and even fraternal relationship?
Haiti has experienced difficulties throughout its history, and this year has been particularly cruel. It started with a devastating earthquake that ravaged the capital of Port-au-Prince and killed more than 250,000 men, women and children. The fallout was felt across the country. Add to that hundreds of thousands of injured and 1.5 million people who were displaced and left homeless. How many children were orphaned? We will probably never know the exact figure, but it is unimaginable.
The entire country was affected: its people, its infrastructure and even its political and organizational structure. The economic, political and human repercussions and consequences of this terrible tragedy are still frightfully evident today. I am thinking, for example, of the many displaced and homeless people who still do not have a permanent roof over their heads and who live in makeshift camps, not to mention the countless number of people and families who have been left with no income.
And now, more recently, there has been a public health catastrophe. I am obviously talking about the cholera epidemic that is sweeping the country. This epidemic has already killed more than 2,200 people and is endangering the lives of thousands of Haitians. On a more personal note, I can say that I have seen the effects of cholera in other parts of the world and they are absolutely devastating.
To top it all off, there is now a political crisis. We know that the country finds itself in a difficult situation and is in the throes of a major crisis because of the November elections, which were rife with irregularities. When the results of the first round of voting and the names of the two candidates who made it to the January 2011 run-off were announced, it sparked a wave of violence that has not subsided. Haitians do not believe that the election results reflect the ballots cast, their choice and their will.
This is ample justification for the emergency debate we are holding. It is urgent that we reflect, it is urgent that we understand, but even more importantly, it is urgent that we take action. It is clear that, if Canada, as well as the entire international community, does not immediately address this crisis, the Haitian people will face catastrophe on several fronts: epidemics, malnutrition, violence, and civil and political instability. We must work on all these fronts at the same time.
First of all, as we have said in the past and are saying again, it is imperative that the Canadian government immediately appoint a special envoy who will have both a political and diplomatic role among the local and international authorities in Haiti.
The hon. member for Bourassa has repeatedly expressed this hope, but we are still waiting.
More specifically, politically speaking, we need to work on fixing the democratic process as quickly as possible. Indeed, urgent action is needed.
We must also focus our efforts on other key stakeholders, in order to garner their support for a peaceful resolution to this crisis. In other words, we need to shake things up. We need to show leadership and urge our allies to get moving if we want our Haitian friends to progress peacefully.
There are many ways to resolve this crisis. That being said, whatever we do, we must respect the system in place as well as Haitian laws, from both a judicial and electoral standpoint.
We are all here this evening to figure out how we can help the electoral process in Haiti, and not to take the place of that country's decision makers.
We must look at how we can work together, but we must not try to take anyone's place. What is crucial in the long term is ensuring that this never happens again. We must work with the Haitian people, with institutions and other partners to ensure that the next time Haitians go to the polls, there will be appropriate monitoring and security measures in place to make the whole process transparent. We want to make sure the new president has a credible mandate and the legitimacy needed to govern. In other words, we need to learn from all of this in order to make sure it never happens again.
Regarding health, I also believe that CIDA needs to send an assessment team immediately to work directly on the ground, to talk to the people, to doctors and other authorities, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the aid being sent to stop the cholera epidemic.
There is one other important point. Some people have already pointed this out, and it bears repeating: we must absolutely ensure that the money makes it to organizations on the ground. That is absolutely essential. Canada has promised large sums of money to help Haiti, but so far it has allocated only part of that money. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been promised, but the money has not yet been allocated. This also needs to be corrected immediately.
Members may recall that the government made a number of announcements and promised hundreds of millions of dollar in aid. The Prime Minister and the ministers responsible for CIDA spoke about funds “distributed“—the terms are important here—and funds “promised”, but unfortunately, that is very different from the funds that have actually been delivered. It takes more than promises; it takes money on the ground. This confusion makes no sense when you see the generosity extended to Haiti by Canadians from across the country.
Lack of transparency is another serious problem. There has been some cloud or shadow, and we need to know a bit more in terms of how funds have been distributed. It is nearly impossible to find relevant information about Canada's priorities, planned expenditures or commitments in Haiti. Like everything else, this must be corrected.
As I said earlier, we have historic ties with Haiti. We are more than partners, we are friends—good friends, even—because we share common values and a language and we work together in institutions such as la Francophonie and others. And then there are the tens of thousands of Canadians of Haitian origin who are here. These people are an extraordinary addition to our society. Today they are part of Canada's social fabric.
To conclude, I would like to say that I have had the opportunity to visit Haiti a number of times, and I know the strength, courage and determination of the Haitian people. These people have always been able to rise up and today they will rise once again. It is our duty to be there with them.
POINTS OF ORDER December 9th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, very quickly, following the parliamentary secretary's logic, I could take the same question, divide it into four parts and send them at exactly the same time, and the same people would have to answer the same questions, but simply divided into four.
We have never tried to delay the process, on the contrary. I hope he believes me. We want answers as quickly as possible. That is important. Once again, the clerks determined that the question was valid and in order, so I ask him to trust them, as I do.