Roger Pomerleau

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits), April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who gave us a comprehensive reminder of the number of times the Quebec National Assembly has adopted unanimous positions.

I remind the House that a unanimous position at the Quebec National Assembly is the position of the four political parties represented there, which represent both federalists and sovereignists, and these four parties represent all of Quebec. That is what a unanimous position of the Quebec National Assembly means.

The Quebec National Assembly has taken unanimous positions a number of times for or against bills. I will mention some examples that were brought up by my colleague. It took a unanimous position against Bill C-12, which would reduce Quebec's political weight; a unanimous position against the creation of a single securities commission—this came up during question period today—; a unanimous position calling on the government to hand over the $2.2 billion we are owed for harmonizing the GST, which the government refuses to pay. Federalists and sovereignists alike have called for that. We often hear that sovereignists talk about how they never get anything, but federalists are not getting what they are asking for either. The National Assembly also took a unanimous position against Senate reform without consultation with the provinces.

Every time they took a unanimous position, all of the federalist members from Quebec, whether they are Conservative or Liberal, good little Quebec members, elected by Quebeckers and paid by Quebeckers to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, always took Canada's side over Quebec's.

Does my colleague, who is well aware of this, not think that this explains why the Bloc Québécois has been winning elections, the majority of the votes in the House, since 1993?

[Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act, April 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and many other members, especially those on this side of the House, have pointed out, Canadians who return to Canada after serving long sentences in foreign countries without access to rehabilitation programs and without a record to ensure follow-up will most likely pose a greater danger to society than individuals incarcerated and rehabilitated here who will have a record. That is not rocket science.

I have a question for my colleague. I am not a member of the committee, but I am really surprised at what is being proposed here today. It seems to me that the minister wants to introduce a bill for the sole purpose of giving himself discretionary power. There can be no other reason for this. Can the member explain to me exactly why the minister wants to do this?

[Tourism Awards, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to point out the impressive number of awards won by tourism operators in the Drummond RCM at this year's central Quebec tourism awards. In fact, our businesses won 10 of the 16 awards.

The award recipients include: Village Québécois d'Antan for a tourist attraction with more than 100,000 visitors; Quality Suites Hotel for lodging establishments with one to three stars; Mondial des Cultures for an event with an operating budget of more than $1 million, as well as the sustainable tourism award for its green practices; Hériot golf club for outdoor and leisure activities; Spa Bioterra for a tourist attraction with fewer than 100,000 visitors; Rose Drummond for agricultural tourism and regional products; and Cabane à sucre Chez Ti-Père for tourist development in food services.

I would also like to congratulate Carmen Hamel, from the Village Québécois d'Antan, who won in the tourist supervisor category and Dominique Côté, from Quality Suites, who took home the tourism leaders of tomorrow award.

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

Madam Speaker, what this does is to send a clear message to the minister that Parliament has decided to support people who create music and called on the government to do the same.

Does the government have to respond to that? It is not responding at all, but eventually, the government will have to answer for its actions and for the fact that it does not follow through on the motions passed in the House by everyone in Parliament. That is how it will play out. This will not change any specific things for them overnight, but it does send a very clear message.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak this evening to the motion by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, which the committee has already adopted, as has been mentioned several times. As my NDP colleague said, half the Liberals on the committee voted in favour of the motion, as did the chair, who is a Conservative. So this is not a motion that some members on this side of the House just came up with. It comes directly from the committee and has the committee's support on the whole.

A well-known American author, Buckminster Fuller, who wrote Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth—a book that was famous in its day—and designed the geodesic dome that served as the U.S. pavilion at Expo 67 in Montreal, once said that if you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top.

What our friend Buckminster meant—and it applies perfectly to our debate today—is that in an emergency, we do not always have time to fuss over details and we sometimes have to take the most expedient course of action instead of waiting for the best course of action. Perfect is quite often the enemy of good.

Our singers, our musicians, our authors, our songwriters and composers and all those who support them are in a state of emergency. Day after day, they are watching their copyright revenue melt away like snow in the sun. Paradoxically, consumption of their work is growing fast, and because of this gap, many of them have an annual income that puts them at the poverty level. This is unfair to them. Not every artist is a Luc Plamondon, a Céline Dion or a member of Cirque du Soleil who has made it big. Many artists are just starting out and still have far to go before they reach their goals.

It is simply a stalling tactic to claim in this House, as many members have, that before taking action we must wait for a comprehensive digital strategy and the modernization of the Copyright Act in keeping with this new strategy and what is being done internationally. This reasoning seeks to justify inaction, which is unwarranted at present and harms the artists concerned as well as their creations. In this sector, the creation is the goose that lays the golden egg for the entire system. If there is no creation, there will be no product for distribution. If there is no product for distribution, there will be no income to share.

Therefore we must ensure, and quickly, that our artists receive their share of the pie. They are entitled to it and we owe it to them. We hope they will continue to create, as their success assures us of ours. If the income of our creators nosedives when the income of all the others in the chain increases, it is simply because new technologies, such as MP3s and iPods, are not covered by the current Copyright Act.

The motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we are asking the House to adopt, will solve this problem, albeit temporarily. The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.

This is, in fact, a declaration of principle.

My colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, was very careful to specify the following in her remarks a few weeks ago:

We are asking to update the legislation to include MP3s.

I said in my speech that the measure would apply only to MP3 digital audio recorders. We are seeing the usual scare tactics from people who say that the measure will apply to smartphones such as the BlackBerry, but that is false.

That is what my colleague said.

We consider this a temporary solution to the problem because we are well aware that we will soon need a much more comprehensive framework to deal with the issues. Canadian regulations do not apply to broadcasting in new media. The CRTC has stated that many of the issues surrounding new media do not fall within its current mandate. That is why we will have to review its mandate, a process that will be neither quick nor easy.

There are many issues related to new media, including taxation, copyright, privacy, spectrum management and the convergence of the broadcasting and telecommunications industries, which fall within the purview of several federal departments, thus complicating matters. The CRTC asked the Government of Canada to coordinate its approach to these intersecting issues by developing a national digital strategy, but that is not going to happen overnight.

This is all the more pressing because we are talking about a major economic sector in which Canada's 2,300 digital media companies employ 18,000 workers and generate some $3.5 billion in revenue per year. That is not peanuts.

I should also point out that people are adopting these new technologies at an ever-increasing rate.

For example, a group of Harvard students set up the social networking site Facebook in 2004. Just five years later—not 50—in September 2009, the site had 300 million active users worldwide, including 12 million in Canada. That is an example of how fast things are changing.

In the same vein, Google Inc. is only 12 years old. The company was founded in 1998 by two students at Stanford University, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The initial search engine quickly became the most powerful in the world and it currently processes roughly 70% of all online requests for information. Google is now the most popular Internet search engine and has generated astronomical revenues for its creators who have sold advertising space on the search pages.

Would the creators of Google have agreed to invest so much talent, time, energy and money if there had been no chance of being paid one day for their investment and creativity? I doubt it and, in my opinion, my colleagues do not think so either.

Our music creators are currently in a situation where their creative efforts might not be compensated because everyone can use their property without paying for it. We have to help them. It is urgent.

At the scene of an accident, we do not engage the multi-trauma victim in a discussion on medical philosophy or the future of health. We first ensure that the injured person is breathing, that the bleeding has stopped and that the person will survive long enough to receive the right treatment in order to recover.

That is exactly what the motion from my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is trying to do.

I have read the questions and comments from government members that opposition members have been hearing in recent weeks, at least all the ones that were about this motion. A number of these questions and comments seemed to be trying to pass opposition members off as amateurs and government members, as usual, as professionals.

I would like to remind members opposite about something that is often forgotten: amateurs built Noah's ark, and professionals built the Titanic.

[Genie Awards, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec film industry dominated the 30th annual Genie Awards ceremony last night in Toronto.

The film Polytechnique won in nine categories, including best film and best direction, awarded to Denis Villeneuve, and best actress, hailing the performance by Karine Vanasse of Drummondville, and best supporting actor, Maxim Gaudette.

The Master Key also won in two categories: best make up and best original score. Father and Guns won the Golden Reel award for earning the most at the box office. Marie-Hélène Cousineau and Madeline Ivalu's Before Tomorrow won for best costumes. The award for best live action short drama went to Pedro Pires for Danse macabre and the best animated short film award went to Cordell Barker's Runaway Train / Train en folie.

Xavier Dolan's I Killed my Mother, recognized around the world but not nominated for a single Genie award, received the Claude Jutra award for the best film by a first time director.

Congratulations to the artists of the Quebec film industry whose talent and creativity have once again allowed them to shine.

[World Theatre Day, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World Theatre Day, created in 1961 by the International Theatre Institute. Every year, an internationally renowned artist releases a message to mark this day. These artists have included Robert Lepage and Michel Tremblay.

In Quebec, this year's message is from Suzanne Lebeau, a playwright who specializes in youth theatre and a recipient of many international awards. Here is an excerpt from her message:

These are times of crisis, and public support is being cut back...And yet... We have never seen a new generation as courageous...invading private and public spaces to reach out to these audiences. By the twos, the fours, the dozens, theatre artists bring alive and make vibrant lobbies, passageways, seats that are upright and hard. Temporary in the means that it receives, temporary in how it reinvents itself night after night, as temporary as life and daily moods, theatre is definitive in expressing the need that we have to speak and to share.

We must support the theatre; it feeds our souls.

[Gen-Com Holstein, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce that my riding is now home to Gen-Com Holstein, a highly specialized animal genetics farming business, and I would like to salute the owners, Lison Laroche and Mario Comtois, of Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil.

Ms. Laroche and Mr. Comtois spent 20 years building Gen-Com Holstein, a division of Comtois International Export.

In the past five years alone, this family business has exported over 30,000 breeding swine and over 15,000 beef and dairy cattle across the world.

These numbers aside, it is the high genetic quality of their herd that is impressive, since Gen-Com Holstein acquires foundation stock with high genetic potential and high conformation, in order to raise cattle with high genetic quality that is recognized around the world.

This unique company considers itself a showcase of the positive things being done in the world in the field of dairy cattle genetics.

Congratulations, Ms. Laroche and Mr. Comtois.

[Agriculture, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has introduced Motion M-460, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this motion.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle underlying the motion, which aims to avoid duplication and to harmonize the registration process, which could be done without violating Canadian standards, in order to promote the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. That is the intention.

However, given that the issue has been presented in the form of a motion and we must vote strictly on its wording, the Bloc Québécois must oppose it, because compliance with Canadian standards is not explicitly mentioned in the wording of the motion, and the member refuses to amend it in order to include a guarantee that Canada will not lower its standards. Furthermore, the vocabulary used is too vague and the motion itself leaves room for interpretation.

Parliamentarians were given a briefing session yesterday to give us the opportunity to ask questions of representatives of Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It was strange that the briefing session was held the day before our debate on the motion, especially since the member did not really provide us with adequate information to allow us to offer an informed opinion.

It was even more unusual that the representatives—there were 15 of them—from the various agencies had prepared such a session for a simple private members' motion, rather than a bill.

The problem is that the motion is very broad and offers no reassurance regarding full compliance with Canadian standards. The motion leaves room for interpretation. We wish to avoid supporting the potential misuse of a motion passed by Parliament.

The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is motivated by the competitiveness of Canadian farmers, who must compete against foreign producers who have access to commercial agricultural products that are banned in Canada.

The member claims that this motion is the result of consultations with many farming organizations and research into scientific procedures.

The problem is that the member has not provided any information about this research or consultation to the parliamentarians who must vote on the motion. Hence, they must do their own research and trust the member's motives in order to understand the intention behind this motion.

All the documents sent to parliamentarians by the hon. member indicate that the suggested harmonization process will be undertaken while respecting Canadian standards. That is true.

In a memorandum that we received, the Library of Parliament indicated that the purpose of this motion is to improve the competitiveness of Canadian producers by allowing them to use commercial agricultural products similar to those used by producers in competing countries, while respecting Canadian standards.

The following very clear statement is found on the website of the hon. member who is moving the motion:

I am requesting through my motion that we consider using the equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes of other trading nations, provided that the results are consistent with Canadian standards.

The intention is very clearly stated on his website, but there is no mention of it in the motion.

The problem raised is that, although there is a desire to protect Canadian standards and to establish equivalent processes, this is not clearly and explicitly stated in the motion. In addition, the creation of equivalent processes consistent with Canadian standards must be better documented in order to prove that any differences in the two systems, although deemed to be equivalent, do not circumvent Canadian standards.

Approval and marketing of production management tools is a highly complex matter that involves a number of laws and a number of different sectors including international trade, the environment, agriculture, research and development, and scientific and business ethics, etc. There are quite a few aspects to study and consider.

The consequences of a motion that is too vague and open-ended could be quite serious for the long-term health of humans and animals and even for the environment. It is odd to choose to take such important steps by presenting a simple motion that, on top of everything else, contains extremely vague terms.

A number of laws would have to be changed in order to make this motion effective: the Pest Control Products Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and many others.

If the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex were serious about his harmonization plan, he should have worked together with officials and law clerks in order to deliver a real bill that would clarify the process standards and the real consequences of his request. We could have worked with that.

The problem is that, because he is simply moving a motion, parliamentarians have to make their decision based on the information available at time the motion is moved since, unlike a bill, the motion will not be debated in committee with the expertise of witnesses. What is more, the opposition parties have no opportunity to amend the motion.

The decision has to be made based on the parliamentarians' interpretation of the motion, as they look at the original wording.

The purpose of harmonizing the standards and rules for the analysis and approval of certain agricultural inputs, what we call production management tools, is far from being something new. In fact, with the creation of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, NAFTA set up a technical working group on pesticides in order to harmonize the regulatory process for this type of product.

In 2000, the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development studied the issue of pesticides, their approval and their trade. The committee's report is very interesting.

It sheds light on the positive points of harmonizing approval standards, namely, and a few have already been mentioned: greater coordination of the pesticide approval process, elimination of trade barriers, a common labelling system, and competitive access to products that are manufactured on both sides of the border or in a number of locations.

In committee, most witnesses agreed that harmonization would make the process far more efficient, thereby improving the productivity of farmers in general and our farmers in particular.

However, a number of experts told the committee that harmonization could have a negative impact by weakening standards overall.

For example, Dr. Kelly Martin of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said:

To me harmonization has great merit. It is sharing information. Why are we re-inventing the wheel? I think harmonization in fact is pushing us in risk assessment upward. I think, in general, it probably pushes us upward... Of course Americans will always have a bigger weight. So if we think we want something greater than they have, it will take a lot of political will to do that.

Here is one last point to consider: even though many witnesses supported harmonization, most of them feared that the process could result in less rigorous Canadian standards. Some standards could even end up being eliminated. That is the Bloc Québécois' number one concern.

This is what the committee recommended:

The Committee recommends that a clause be added in the operative sections of the new Pest Control Act requiring that protection of human health and the environment according to the precautionary principle be the sole objective of any action to harmonize Canadian standards with those of other countries, and that such standards not be weakened in any way.

With the precautionary principle in mind, the Bloc Québécois will not support this motion.

[Olympic Athletes, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Drummondville were excited to watch their hometown athletes perform at the Olympic Games in Vancouver.

These were the first Olympic Games for 30-year-old Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau. He came in fifth in freestyle skiing, men's moguls. The Drummondville native said that it was his best performance ever.

Jessica Dubé, who is from Saint-Cyrille de Wendover, delivered her best performance of the season and placed sixth in the pairs free skating event with her partner Bryce Davison. They are now preparing for the world championships to be held in Torino, Italy, from March 22 to 28.

Lastly, Marco Marciano, former goalie coach for the Drummondville Voltigeurs, won a gold medal with Canada's women's hockey team.

On behalf of my fellow citizens, congratulations to all of our athletes.