Pablo Rodriguez

[POINTS OF ORDER, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning my order paper question about the copyright bill, Question 614.

Clearly, the parliamentary secretary made comments that are a bit difficult to understand, are of a more partisan nature and have little to do with the rules. He said that we ask long questions to cause delays and slow down the process. In fact, quite the opposite is true. What I really want is to get answers from the government.

This is what I wish for. I need answers.

And so I am asking for answers in this regard. A desire to delay the process was the furthest thing from our minds. On the contrary, it is very important to seek out answers and that is why we are asking a question.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that my question was not concise enough. I would like to know what is concise and what is not. The length of the question is directly proportional to the length and complexity of the bill. I hope that some of the members have read Bill C-32, which is 65 pages long. It is extremely long and complex. We need clarification in this regard.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry told us that the bill was based on consultations held across Canada. I went across Canada. I met with people in all 10 provinces during round tables on copyright. I hope that I can do so in the territories as well. What I heard was not at all like what the government heard. It was completely different. The government is telling us that the bill is based on consultations. What I am saying is that I consulted people and I got very different information. Something is not right, and that is why I put questions on the order paper, questions that are extremely important. For example, I want to know who they consulted. What was the process? What was the outcome of that process? We are not getting those answers in the House or in committee. Once again, what we heard is very different from what they heard.

What is clear to me, and probably to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this question is relevant. It is fair and to the point. Once again, we are not getting answers in the House or in committee. This bill is far too important to just let it go as is. We need answers, so we are using the question on the order paper to get important answers.

I would like to look at this from the perspective of the Standing Orders and read an excerpt from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states that:

Aside from a 1965 Speaker’s statement indicating that some of these restrictions no longer applied, there is no definitive breakdown of which of these are still valid. Thus [and this is important] a very large measure of responsibility for ensuring the regularity of written questions fell to the Clerk.

I will end with the following:

Acting on the Speaker’s behalf, the Clerk has full authority to ensure that questions placed on the Notice Paper conform to the rules and practices of the House.

Clerks in the service of the Clerk of the House analyzed the question, revised it and allowed it. They did their job. I do not see why anyone would question the work of the clerks. Unlike the parliamentary secretary, I trust them and I believe that you too will reiterate your confidence in our clerks.

[Copyright, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was a serious question and I should have had a serious answer.

We know that the bill is completely unbalanced. We also know that it harms our creators, our writers and our authors. It eliminates grandfathered protection. It will lead to lost revenue. It increases the number of exemptions and it is far too vague on a number of topics. What is clear, however, is that the bill must be amended.

And so, I have a question for the minister: will he work with us to improve his bill and make it fairer, more equitable and better balanced?

[Copyright, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the copyright bill is skewed to the detriment of copyright holders and creators.

In committee, artists and creators laid out the full extent of lost revenue they will suffer if the bill is adopted as is.

The minister knows full well about these losses and about how this will punish creators. Is he ready to find a solution to compensate creators or will he just wash his hands and say, “Too bad for you”?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there are the words we have just heard and there are the facts, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Last year, at the height of economic crisis, the minister refused to help the CBC. As a result, hundreds of people were laid off and the CBC had to sell off $125 million in assets. And recently we learned that the government is cutting another $13.7 million from the budget.

Their dream has always been to either shut down or privatize the CBC. Are the Conservatives essentially doing indirectly what they cannot do directly?

[Seniors, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives are doing is disgusting. They are shamelessly wasting our money. Meanwhile, the poverty rate among seniors has increased by 25%. Has that become a priority for them? No, not at all. Worse still, they are changing the rules to make it even harder to access the guaranteed income supplement. This will force even more seniors into poverty.

I know they are very busy gallivanting around in taxis, eating canapés, building prisons and buying airplanes, but when they have finished all of that, will they finally find some time to look after our seniors?

[Government Spending, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on one hand, the Conservatives are telling us that times are tough and that we need to tighten our belts. On the other hand, they are getting carried away and spending without restraint. Imagine, $1.3 million for taxis, and that does not include limousines. It is not their pocket money, it is Canadians' money.

I think I understand what the Conservatives are saying to Canadians. It is quite simple: Do as I say, not as I do. Is that it?

[Grey Cup, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues join me in congratulating the Montreal Alouettes on last night's victory. Two Grey Cups in two years is a huge feat, and that feat kept us holding our breath until the very end. We will remember this game for years to come, particularly Billy Parker's interception with 56 seconds left in the game. The football game was just the way we like them: intense, hotly disputed and close until the end.

I would also like to congratulate the Roughriders who played quite a game. It is a great team that gave its all. Bravo to Edmonton as well; the city can be proud of this great success.

Special thanks and congratulations go to quarterback Anthony Calvillo, who has now become a Canadian football legend. We wish him luck in the challenges he will be facing in the coming months. Our thoughts are with him and his family.

Well done, Alouettes. Well done, Quebec City's Rouge et Or. Well done and thank you.

[National Tree Day, November 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am very pleased to speak to the motion of the member opposite, which states, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should proclaim September 22 as National Tree Day.” I congratulate him on this motion and his excellent work on this subject.

I would like to take a moment to explain the fundamental role that trees have played in Canada's history. I will start by taking us back to the very beginning of our country's history, even before the first Europeans set foot here. We know that the people who inhabited this land used wood every day to build tools, weapons, artifacts and obviously many other things. I must also point out that at the time, forests covered the vast majority of the land that is now known as Canada.

The tree also has symbolic meanings for the first nations peoples, and these meanings can vary from one nation to the next.

However, all we need to know and remember is that, in general, roots represent their attachment to mother earth. This is the case throughout the Americas. This same link exists in many different countries. I met with people from Latin America who felt this same tie to mother earth. The roots represent our attachment to mother earth and the rest of the tree represents the community. Without strong roots anchored in the earth—in other words, a constant regard for the nature around us—the tree, which represents the community, cannot stand firm.

We must respect the tree; we must respect the roots. When we do, we respect our community.

There is a lesson to be learned. It is about the importance of fostering a culture of respect for the environment if we want human beings to survive. That is fundamental. It is good to come back to these basic lessons and recognize that this balance on earth is fundamental for human beings. We need to remember that.

Let us turn back the clock. We will continue to look at the history of our relationship with trees. I am thinking about the first settlers who came here. I would like to talk about them for a moment. We know that during their first rough winters here in Canada, they survived scurvy by drinking a cedar-based beverage.

And so trees kept many of them alive. They also learned from the first nations that trees could improve their quality of life. Maple sap, once boiled, became maple syrup—the same famous maple syrup that many Canadians, young and old alike, still love to put on their pancakes today. Boy, do we love our maple syrup.

Then people began to use trees as a natural resource. They used wood to build boats, house frames and many other things.

Let us not forget—since we are talking about history and going back in time—about the drivers who worked to transport logs over river rapids. We know that wood played a fundamental role in building our country.

A little more recently, wood processing plants and pulp and paper plants became real leaders in the Canadian economy, all thanks to our countless trees. We are truly quite fortunate to have so many trees in our country.

Trees are still used today as a natural resource. The wood they produce is still commonly used as a building material and in pulp and paper plants.

If we look at the forestry industry, it is clear that across Canada, it is an important industry that employs huge numbers of people, thousands of people, and generates considerable profits.

For those people, the tree has additional symbolic meaning, additional importance: it is their bread and butter.

Just look around us: there is wood everywhere. My colleague mentioned this earlier. To this day, wood is one of the most common materials, whether in the House or elsewhere. I truly hope that this continues to be the case because, in many respects, wood is absolutely irreplaceable.

In the past, people have cut down trees recklessly, and that is still true today. The documentary by Richard Desjardins, Forest Alert, clearly demonstrated that some companies did not consider how important trees are to the environment. In fact, they did not care. Trees are important not only to the environment, but also to our well-being. On behalf of my party, I would like to thank Richard Desjardins for raising Canadians' awareness of the importance of the environment and the responsible use of trees as a natural resource.

Today, thousands of trees are planted every year to renew our forests. We are also a bit more aware—although perhaps not enough yet—that Canada's forests and all trees are our planet's lungs. Photosynthesis, which captures the CO₂ in the air and improves everyone's quality of life, is vital to our quality of life and the survival of the human race. A few years ago, we started recycling paper to reduce tree cutting and preserve our forests, but we still have a lot of work to do.

We can look at trees in different ways. They are part of the beauty of our country. Our trees and forests are an integral part of the beautiful scenery in Quebec and Canada. Some regions have developed a whole tourism industry around the beauty of the local trees. When we climb up a mountain in the fall, what could be better than seeing all the magnificent leaves of red, orange and all sorts of colours. Without trees, that scenery would not be the same. It certainly would not be as lovely. What is more, tourists would not be as interested in travelling here, and our tourist industry would never recover.

I could go even further and say that many works of art never would have been created without trees, which inspired them in the first place.

Trees have always been important to Canadians' lives, and they still are today. Trees are so much a part of our lives in Canada that we even have a maple leaf on our flag.

There are many different ways to look at trees. For those who work in the forest industry, trees and wood are their bread and butter. For others, a tree is just something to hang a swing from or lie underneath, out of the heat of the sun. People look at trees in different ways, but trees improve everyone's quality of life because of how they affect our environment and our air quality.

Even my colleague here will agree that we must preserve our trees and our forests. Having a day to commemorate the importance of trees is a good start. It is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. That is why my colleague and I and the entire caucus are happy to support this motion.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 22nd, 2010]

With regard to the procedure followed by the Department of Canadian Heritage for awarding grants and contributions in the arts and culture sector over the past two fiscal years: (a) what steps were taken to reduce the time required to process applications and pay out the approved funding; (b) how many additional multi-year agreements were signed in each of these fiscal years; and (c) what is the amount of each of these multi-year agreements?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2010]

With respect to the Marquee Tourism Events Program, in the last two fiscal years and for each riding: (a) how many applications were received and what was the total amount requested; (b) how many applications were deemed eligible and what was the total amount of those applications; (c) how many applications were deemed eligible without seeking approval from the minister and what was the total amount of those applications; and (d) how many applications were approved by the minister and what was the total amount of those applications?