Roger Pomerleau

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague has on several occasions used the expression “good faith”, and it is also in the Bloc Québécois motion. He used it at the beginning of his speech, and also at the end. He spoke a great deal about the need to support good faith, regardless of its cost. Many people both within this House and elsewhere are thinking and saying that good faith is as assumption. I am not one of those; I feel that good faith has to be earned, and it is far harder to achieve than people think.

Like many people here in this House, I have a background in the Scouting movement, and the first law of Scouting is that a scout swears on his honour to be trustworthy. How does he do that? By showing people that if he gives his word, he keeps it. Yet all parties that have been in power here for the past 20 years have never kept their word or respected any major commitments they have made. To give one random example: Jean Chrétien and abolition of the GST. That was never done, yet it was a promise.

I would like to ask my colleague who wishes to earn that good faith at this time, with an election call looming, and his party with a strong possibility of defeating the government over there, just what he is prepared to do to earn good faith through specific commitments. What criteria will Quebec have to comply with in order to get the $2.6 billion in compensation? When we have that answer, we will know exactly what we are voting on.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy listening to the hon. member for Outremont, first because he speaks very well, and also because he really understands what is going on on the other side, since he himself was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly. The fact that a person was a minister in Quebec City does not automatically mean that he or she understands these things. Indeed, some current cabinet ministers are former members of the Quebec National Assembly, but they have already forgotten that. Day in and day out, rather than defend Quebec's interests, they give us the impression that they want to keep the flag on the hood of their limousine, as Jean Chrétien put it so well. He was the only person who could use both official languages at the same time.

When we look at the government opposite, we get the impression that the good old method used regarding this issue consists in setting criteria for Quebec and, once it meets them, in pushing them back, or in setting new ones. Quebec is required to meet these criteria, but it can never do that, because the government keeps changing them. It is like a dog chasing its tail. It can never catch it. That is obvious with the Conservatives. However, I also find the comments made in this House by two Liberal members very disturbing, and I would like to hear what the hon. member for Outremont has to say about them.

For example, the hon. member sitting nearby said that Quebec must be prepared to make some concessions. This is like announcing right now that other criteria will be set in the future.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank my colleague for the fine speech she just made. I would also like to remind her of something before asking my questions.

She asked why the Bloc Québécois is making a priority of this issue today, in the House, while we are in the midst of an economic crisis. We are talking about an amount of $2.6 billion that is owed to Quebec and that we are asking for. It is our money. This 2.6 billion dollars or 2,600 million dollars is owed to us, and it is because we are facing an economic crisis that we are asking urgently for that money.

As for my question, I would like to remind my colleague that campaign promises do not always go very far. The present government, before being elected as a government for the last time—since it will not be elected the next time—promised to use an open federalism approach and to respect the provinces. We are discussing an amount that is owed to us and that has been left unpaid. As we can see, words have a profound meaning in politics.

My colleague told us, in her speech, that the administration of the two taxes is going very well right now in Quebec, and she is perfectly right. She told us that Quebec should expect to have to make some concessions. Could she say exactly what concessions?

[Copyright, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, illegal downloading is hurting artists. They get nothing for their work, while Internet service providers benefit from it.

The Copyright Act does not contemplate the impact of new technologies, such as the Internet, and it should be amended as quickly as possible. Everyone deserves to be compensated for their work, so we must ensure both that creators receive their due and that consumers can take advantage of this new way to access their work.

Bill C-61, which the Conservatives introduced in June 2008, demands no accountability from the industry. Instead, it attacks consumers, who pay Internet service providers for access.

In honour of World Intellectual Property Day, which was yesterday, the members of the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new Copyright Act is fair and does a decent job of protecting creators' work.

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about young people, who are often the most vulnerable when it comes to credit, and he talked about the efforts made by the banks and financial institutions to target that market. I worked for an MP before coming to this House myself. I know very well that some years back, the banks aggressively lobbied all members, asking them to go to schools to speak with students about credit cards. Members declined to do so, because they felt it made no sense. The banks were contradicting themselves on this. To a certain extent, when banks sell credit cards under the pretext of educating people about credit, they are in fact simply offering them that credit.

I wonder if my colleague agrees with the banks' actions at the time, because they are likely doing something similar right now.

This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to my hon. Conservative colleague's remarks.

Essentially, today's motion by the NDP, as it stands, is aimed at reducing the power the industry has at present to do as it pleases at the expense of the ordinary consumer. The people in the industry are permanently in contradiction with themselves in this system. On the one hand, they are the ones using every possible means of encouraging people to make consumer purchases and to go into debt, appealing to their emotions by bombarding them with advertising. We know very well that ads target people's emotions, not their intellect. On the other hand, they use every possible means to encourage people to make rational choices and not full into the traps that have been set for them.

My colleague claims that the NDP, having never been in power, has no credibility in presenting this motion today. Does my colleague realize that the Conservatives will not be re-elected in the next election, nor for many decades of elections thereafter?

[Levinoff-Colbex Slaughterhouse, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse, which is located in my riding, is the only major slaughterhouse left in eastern Canada. This business employs close to 200 people and slaughters between 4,000 and 5,000 cull cows a week from five provinces.

Producers in Quebec have reinvested $30 million to finance the business and are counting on the federal government to contribute $19 million to expand and modernize the existing facilities so that steers from Quebec, which are currently slaughtered in the United States, can be slaughtered in Canada. This investment would maintain current jobs and create additional jobs.

The government provided $50 million in its latest budget to support the slaughter industry, but as in many other cases, it is dragging its feet on implementing the program. We call on the members of the Conservative Party from Quebec, who claim to wield a great deal of power in the government, to join the Bloc Québécois in standing up for Quebec's economic interests in this matter and to make sure that the slaughterhouse gets its fair share.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government currently has $3 billion, and it has no idea where it is going to spend that money, or at least, it does not want to tell us. It could easily take $171 million and make a one-year loan to CBC/Radio-Canada. No one would die, and CBC/Radio-Canada would at least get a short reprieve.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed. Culture is not simply merchandise, and funds must be injected to support it. I would remind you that, in France, $77 per capita is invested to support broadcasting. In Britain—with the BBC, which is absolutely extraordinary and well worth watching—the amount is $124 per capita. Here a mere $34 is injected, and the government is boasting about how wonderful that is.

In my opinion, the amount should be increased to at least $40 and provided with regularity so that the corporation can, like all intelligent businesses, manage its affairs on the basis of data that is predictable annually and not on the whim of a minister or another, who might be subject to change, or who might be catching a cold.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. People living in remote communities are probably affected most by these cuts, and it is they who need the CBC the most. Radio is often the only contact people living in remote regions have with the rest of the country—when they have access to it. It may not be available at times because the technical requirements to serve them are unavailable. However, when it is available, radio is often their sole contact and the only way they have to feel connected.

In addition, local television or radio gives them a sense of belonging to their community. I think the cuts will indeed affect them. The cuts are much deeper and more harmful than might be generally thought, and I think it is a real pity that this government could literally not care less.