Chris Alexander

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this really is the most exciting part of the bill. We all believe on this side of the House that modernization, combined with the unprecedented agenda of trade and investment liberalization that the government is pursuing in all parts of the world, stand to make our cultural industry stronger and more visible both to us in Canada and worldwide. We cannot always find the artists we want in a timely way online or on television because the structures are not there and the financing is not there to bring them to us. It will also take these artists to audiences, billions of people, around the world who have yet to hear everything they want to hear from Canada. Therefore, this is a trade and economic measure as much as it is a cultural measure.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the needs of educational institutions and the needs of a new generation that want to engage with electronic media more intensely than any previous are heavily taken into account in striking the balance that the bill strikes.

The member opposite will have to agree with us on this side that the modernization the bill represents, the struggle to balance the needs of those school children, of the independent consumers with those of the corporate sector and artists themselves who want to get paid for their work has been well struck in the bill.

It is unacceptable for us to allow further delay. The last update in modernization in this area took place before the first Google search had taken place, before Facebook and Twitter were created. We need to legislate in this field, and this bill would do the job.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that is not what I said or implied. However, that is his modus operandi, so we will let it pass.

The bottom line is the NDP is not as convinced, and certainly not as principled, on the issue of cracking down on piracy. It does not accept that artists would be the ones to benefit first and foremost from an industry that is regulated by the rule of law, from an industry where artists are able to reliably protect their creations under a modernized law. The artists agree with this. Loreena McKennitt said that the changes proposed in the government's copyright bill were “fair and reasonable”.

Michael Geist, someone with whom I am sure the member opposite sympathizes, said:

The bill will require careful study, but the initial analysis is that there were some serious efforts to find compromise positions on many thorny copyright issues.

We stand with the balance we have struck.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure to rise in the House today as part of this debate on Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. Like so much of the legislation we are discussing in this session, this legislation is long overdue and badly needed by a sector of the Canadian economy that is absolutely fundamental to our future growth and to job creation in this country in the years and decades to come.

It matters for the artists of this country who have yet to emerge, cut their first album, produce their first painting or write their first play. It also matters for the superstars we all enjoy today who want to take their creations even further. Feist, Cirque du Soleil and dozens of artists that all of us in the House admire enormously are among those who stand to benefit from versions of this act, which is above all focused on modernization in a sector where being up to date has always counted as much as anything else, because the methods by which artists transmit their works to the world have always been changing.

In my remarks, I want to review the path that we have taken in coming to the point of bringing this bill before the House and remind hon. members that copyright is at the heart of our democratic system. It is at the heart of our society and our values, in that it allows us to bring art creations before a larger audience and ensure that creators and artists benefit and are able to be part of a value chain, part of businesses that ultimately form an enormous and growing industry in this country.

It goes all the way back to the time of Queen Anne. One of the first copyright statutes was as far back as 1708. Hon. members on my side of the House will take some pride in the fact that it was a Tory government at that time in England, which is not surprising.

The first legislation in this country came at a very formative stage. In the 1830s, long before the British North America Act was passed, this country was legislating in this field. The original Copyright Act goes back to 1921 and was not updated in any thorough way for a long time, because media had not changed as dramatically, through much of the 20th century, as they have in recent decades. This measure is now urgent.

The legislation in previous Parliaments, as hon. members know, did not come through the legislative process and receive royal assent. I would like to take some time to reflect on how this bill has reached the point at which we see it today.

It is most important to emphasize that this bill built on input from literally thousands of Canadians, and many of the consultations took place in 2009. The response to them was remarkable, demonstrating not only how important copyright is to the digital economy and our global competitiveness but also that Canadians understand how important this is to their lives. If we are not up to date and modern in our legislation in this field, Canadians literally deprive themselves of self-understanding through the best art, stories and representations of the way we live in this country that are available. We are each serving our own quality of life in supporting this legislation.

Through the consultations, the government heard many views from copyright owners, artists, individual copyright users, innovative companies, teachers and students.

The teachers and students told us they need greater flexibility to make use of copyright materials to maximize the opportunities provided by new classroom technologies. That is a fair point.

Copyright owners told us Canada's copyright law needs to reflect international standards in rights and protections to allow them to sustain business models in a digital environment and a globalized context.

Consumers told us that they want to make reasonable use of content they have already bought and paid for.

Furthermore, from all the feedback we received it became abundantly clear how important it was going to be to design a copyright bill that balanced the interests and needs of the full range of interested parties. None of these constituencies was going to get everything it wanted out of this bill; each would have to strike a balance with all the other major interested parties.

Following the consultations in spring of 2010, during the 40th Parliament the government introduced Bill C-32, also a copyright modernization act, and after second reading the bill was referred to a legislative committee. That committee heard Canadians' views over the course of 17 days of witness hearings. In that time, 70 individuals and organizations appeared and 150 written submissions were received, and two key messages emerged: first, the bill struck the right balance between various stakeholders, in the view of the vast majority of those taking part; second, Canada urgently needed to pass an updated copyright legislation to bring ourselves up to date.

Unfortunately, the 40th Parliament was dissolved. Members opposite will know more about the reasons for that than we do on our side. It was an unnecessary election, and it had a cost in terms of the timeliness of legislation and a further delay in the passing of this bill. Therefore, to facilitate swift passage in this Parliament, the government introduced a bill without changes in order to reiterate its support for balanced legislation and to facilitate the modernization of the act.

Then a second legislative committee went to work studying the bill, and it has reported back. That committee held seven more days of witness hearings and heard from 40 additional witnesses.

During clause-by-clause review, the committee adopted several technical amendments. I call these amendments “technical” because they address specific legal and drafting issues in the bill, while preserving the overall balance. They have improved the clarity of several important provisions of the bill. Obviously this world is changing; as a result, the technical background to many of this bill's provisions is changing, and we had to ensure that the bill now before this House matched the intent of the bill and the reality in this sector.

Some of the technical amendments tighten up the language of new measures to fight online piracy. For example, the provisions that create a new civil liability for so-called enablers—services that enable online piracy—have been strengthened. It has also been clarified that an enabler would not be able to benefit from any of the safe harbours in the bill that are intended to apply to legitimate Internet intermediaries when they are playing a neutral role.

We have also cleaned up and corrected ambiguous wording in some aspects of the bill, fully in line with the government's stated intent. For example, it is now specified that new exceptions for copying for private purposes apply only for the private purposes of the person who makes the copy, not for some other person's private purpose. Other technical amendments would reassure Canada's information and communication technology sector that exceptions designed to foster innovation through activities such as security testing, interoperability and encryption research would not provide inadvertent loopholes for malicious activities. The last thing we wanted to do is allow those engaged in piracy to enter, as it were, back into this game through the back door.

Finally, the safe harbours provided to Internet intermediaries have been amended to ensure that the conditions that must be met to receive shelter are aligned with industry best practices. These are just some of the examples of improvements made.

This June will mark the two-year point since the predecessor of this bill was first introduced. That is a long time. It is clear we owe it to all those who participated in the consultations in committee hearings to move forward with this important legislation. Time does not stand still on these issues, and this Parliament will no doubt return to this issue with subsequent amendments and with subsequent legislative measures in this field. However, it is vital to Canada's competitiveness and to the well-being and prosperity of our artists and our cultural industries that this bill now move ahead. Without this legislation, everyday Canadians will not be certain that they are on the right side of the law when they do something as simple as recording a television program for later viewing. Without this legislation, copyright owners will not have legal protection for the digital locks they use to protect their investments in a digital marketplace.

With these modernizations, an already vast industry in Canada will stand every chance of growing, of achieving record levels of growth and taking the richness and all of the diversity of Canada's cultural industries to a much larger audience inside this country and well beyond our borders.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to put a question for the member opposite because it pains me to see such a well-informed representative of this country's cultural industry cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Would the member opposite not agree that whatever the number that may be lost to some artists, $21 million, larger or smaller, the bigger fight that is being undertaken in this legislation is against piracy? It is in favour of the rule of law in cultural industries, in the arts. This legislation is in favour of the little guy, the struggling folk singer, the visual artist, the broadcaster, who does not have the ability through our current copyright legislation to control the fruits of his or her labour and to receive remuneration for them. This legislation is in favour of putting piracy on the ropes and having the rule of law enforced in this sector. The stakes are much higher for the little guy and the benefits could run into possibly billions of dollars.

Would the member opposite not grant us that? Will he stop cutting off his nose to spite his face?

[May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, we have not eliminated any of our options. We have not decided against the F-35 development project. That is a different program from the one to replace the CF-18s.

However, we do know the operational costs of the CF-18s. We have spoken about them at length in committee and in this place. We will have to cost out the options for replacing the CF-18s. How many aircraft will we purchase? We shall see. We have a budget and we will work within it.

However, we must really prove, show and verify the cost before giving a definitive answer.

It is not true that the benefits for the Canadian industry are hypothetical. I know that is what the Leader of the Opposition believes; he denied that the F-35 purchase would create jobs in Montreal and other regions in Canada. These jobs are already real. We have invested more than $300 million—

[May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House before you and my hon. colleague, whose interest in this very important matter regarding the future of the Canadian Forces, and the Royal Canadian Air Force in particular, never seems to wane.

Her questions are entirely relevant and are questions that we must consider very carefully, given the importance of this issue. I appreciate having the opportunity to respond.

When will we have the planes to replace the CF-18s? It is impossible to know, and I am giving a very honest answer here today in the House. Why? Because we are nowhere near the point of procuring any planes to replace the CF-18s and because we have a plan—as we have mentioned repeatedly in this House—that will govern our actions over the months and years to come, before any spending of any kind takes place to replace the CF-18s.

We are being very careful in this matter. We are very aware of the complexity of the matter. I repeat, we are fully aware of the complexity of developing a new high-tech aircraft, with eight other partners, because the development is not yet complete.

We have made a lot of progress so far, but we are not there yet. As all members of the House are well aware, no decisions have been made about what will replace the CF-18s. That is why, in response to the Auditor General's spring report, we launched a better, broader framework to guide our decision-making process with respect to replacing the CF-18s.

The hon. member probably already knows all seven points by heart, but there are really three key elements among them. First, no decision will be made without presenting all of the costs to Parliament, and that includes not just estimated costs, but full life-cycle costs for the aircraft. Those costs will have to be tabled in the House and verified by an independent authority commissioned by the Treasury Board. That is part of our commitment and our plan, and we will keep that promise.

Second, we will continue to compare Canada's options. Of course, we are participating in developing the F-35. Our involvement started 15 years ago in 1997, when the member was very young and perhaps still a member of the Canadian Forces, or maybe even before she embarked on her military career.

Fifteen years is a long time. We have a certain amount of experience and a certain amount of expertise. However, that does not mean, even today, that the F-35 is definitely Canada's choice. We have to follow the steps set out in our plan before making such a decision. And we are going to compare the F-35 with the other options.

Third, it is very important to ensure that our procurement exercise complies with Canada's military production laws. There is a law in this regard. The Minister of Public Works is responsible for it. These three things are very important.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, the question posed by my hon. colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore is very important because it relates to values that Canadians really care about: the security and integrity of our personal information. That is why it gives me great pleasure to reply.

Communications Security Establishment Canada is Canada's national cryptologic agency. It provides the Government of Canada with two key services: foreign signals intelligence in support of defence and foreign policy, and the protection of electronic information and communication.

It is important to note that CSEC does not target Canadians' communications. I probably should repeat this. CSEC does not target Canadians' communications, no matter where they live. In addition, legislative measures in effect protect Canadians' privacy. CSEC activities focus on foreign intelligence.

Oversight is provided by an independent commissioner, who is a supernumerary justice or a retired justice of a superior court. The current commissioner, Robert Décary, is a former justice of the Federal Court and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. He takes his responsibilities seriously, and he carries out his duties with impeccable diligence and intelligence.

To carry out this review mandate, the commissioner and his staff are guaranteed access to all CSEC personnel, information and documentation.

The commissioner's work involves the thorough review of selected CSEC activities using a variety of methods, such as monitoring control mechanisms, scrutinizing policies and procedures and how they are applied, reviewing training programs, reviewing the use of information, and reviewing the technology used to minimize the collection of information not relevant to CSEC's mandate and therefore safeguard the privacy of Canadians.

The commissioner's reports indicate that CSEC's activities over the past 16 years have been lawful. The commissioner has also confirmed that CSEC has taken steps to protect Canadians' privacy, as required by law.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, it is the essential question for all of us, because without the care for Canadian Forces members and their families, those leaving for missions, those training for missions, those returning from missions, we could not accomplish any of the objectives that we have been talking about today.

There is no higher priority for this government than serving our veterans. The men and women who serve in uniform are our best and bravest. They face exceptional challenges, both in today's missions and in coping with the legacy of past missions.

As such, the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada are working in lockstep, hand in glove, to make care available to injured soldiers and their families and to address their needs in a timely, meaningful way. That is why the Minister of National Defence announced in September 2010, the government's intention to spend $52.5 million over five years to establish a legacy of care to improve the quality of life for our seriously injured personnel and their families.

This legacy of care for those severely injured as a result of wounds received in high risk operations includes the following measures: barrier-free transitional accommodations; support services for transitional accommodations; the Canadian Forces attendant care benefit; the Canadian Forces spousal education upgrade benefit; and a caregiver benefit.

Since first being elected, this government has invested more in veterans initiatives than any government has since the end of the Second World War.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, as all members know, one of the roles that these estimates allow the Canadian Forces to play is to contribute to international peace and security and project Canadian leadership abroad. As the Prime Minister said, words alone will not suffice to make this possible.

As a government, with these two ministers at the forefront, we have been engaged in rebuilding Canada's armed forces to be a modern, state-of-the-art fighting force to protect Canada's role of influence in the world and to allow us to do our part when the international community decides to act and military capacity is required. Today's investments are tomorrow's capabilities.

On a day like today, May 9, the anniversary of victory in Europe, we would do well to reflect that the last three years have brought us to an operational tempo that had last been achieved by this country only in the 1950s. In addition to the G20, the Olympics and domestic missions, about which we will hear more in tonight's proceedings, we had missions in Haiti and Libya and for over a decade we had the mission in Afghanistan, which both ministers have rightly emphasized as central to the renewal of the capacity of our Canadian Forces.

A terrible earthquake hit Haiti in January 2010, and 2,000 members of the Canadian Forces were deployed as an emergency task force to operate airfields, to provide help and assistance to those in need and to provide a backbone for a much larger international assistance mission.

All of these capabilities would not have been there without the investments we are talking about today, without the investments for the long term that are represented by today's estimates, particularly the procurement elements.

Let us look back over a mission with which I am most familiar among all the missions the Canadian Forces has undertaken, and that is the mission in Afghanistan. Let us look back at the leadership role Canada has played for over a decade at every stage of that mission.

Canada protected the Kandahar airfield as early as 2002, in the very first stages of the campaign. Operation Anaconda cleared the last serious, organized forces loyal to the Taliban out of the country. Canada promoted a NATO command of ISAF in the summer of 2003 when it was not yet a mission of the North Atlantic alliance. Our Canadian Forces took over command of that mission in 2004. Canada championed the expansion of ISAF to all parts of the country to ensure that the UN mandate, that multinational mission now including over 40 countries, ultimately covered all of Afghanistan. Our Canadian Forces took on disarmament and heavy weapons confinement. We also took over a PRT in Kandahar in 2005. Our forces faced, almost alone at first, the first wave of insurgency in 2006, and then became a crucible for successful counter-insurgency in southern Afghanistan in Zhari and Panjwai and Dand Districts. Our Canadian Forces prepared the ground for a U.S-led surge, transferring to the training mission just last year. The Canadian Forces contributed in all of these ways to a huge security gain in southern Afghanistan and across that country.

These missions were not without cost and not without sacrifice. One hundred and fifty-eight Canadian lives were lost. More than 2,000 lives were lost from allied nations, as well as tens of thousands of Afghan lives, and lives continue to be lost.

However, these sacrifices resulted in an enormous gain for that country. Afghanistan is a changed country, with a GDP per capita income ratio four times what it was when our troops first arrived. Clinics and schools blanket the country. There are new roads and infrastructure. Agriculture is on the rebound. Most important in terms of tonight's discussion is that the Afghan national security force is close to 200,000 on the army side and close to 150,000 on the national police side.

This has given the Afghan people hope. It has given Canada the rationale to focus on training. It has given all of us the possibility to talk about the transition to an Afghan lead in all parts of the country, which is under way.

There are tough days ahead and important decisions to make, but it is important on a night like tonight, when we are talking about investing in Canadian capabilities, that we not forget the achievements.

Those achievements also came in Libya last year. Many months of 2011 were devoted to this mission, to keeping Misrata open, courtesy of the Royal Canadian Navy, and to refuelling allied aircraft, courtesy of our air force, to analyzing Gadhafi's brutal attacks, identifying targets, flying over 10% of the attack missions over Libya in the case of Canada's current fighter fleet, and of course, one point we are all enormously proud of, through Lieutenant-General Charlie Bouchard, exercising leadership with determination, balance and wisdom.

As our Minister of National Defence has said, Canadians see the value of dealing with potential international security problems upstream. That is one of the reasons we engaged not only when the going got very tough in Libya and Afghanistan, but also in operations around the world that aim to prevent conflict.

All hon. members may not know that there are 1,300 Canadian Forces members deployed around the world, not just in Afghanistan, but in 17 international missions.

Right now, 57 Canadian Forces personnel are stationed in the Middle East, a critical region where the Canadian Forces have been present since the Suez crisis in 1956.

These troops are participating in four operations: in the Sinai Peninsula with the multinational force and observers, created by the 1979 Camp David and Washington peace treaties; on the Golan Heights; in various other Middle East locations with the United Nations organization responsible for overseeing the truce; and in Jerusalem and on the West Bank with the Office of the United States Security Coordinator. What are we doing with the United States in those places? The Canadian Forces are overseeing and training Palestinian Authority security forces and helping coordinate security issues between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The future of the Middle East depends on creating a climate of peace and stability. Canada is helping to make that happen.

In Africa, the Canadian Forces are making an important contribution to various UN missions. For example, 14 CF personnel have been assigned to Operation Soprano, Canada's contribution to the United Nations mission in South Sudan. Nine members of the Canadian Forces are participating in Operation Crocodile, Canada's contribution to peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Maritime operations are still under way. Only last year, the members of the Canadian Forces on board HMCS Charlottetown participated in the NATO mission off the coast of Libya. Now, they are part of NATO's Operation Active Endeavour to prevent the movement of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction in the Mediterranean Sea.

The fact that HMCS Charlottetown is now in the Arabian Sea region is proof of Canada's perseverance and its ongoing determination to participate in maritime operations abroad. Five Canadians are still in Haiti, two years after the earthquake.

However, we have to adapt in today's complex security environment. We have to respond to new and evolving challenges, the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region in the global economy, threats in emerging domains like space and cyber, the human rights of populations under threat from conflict, failed institutions, or repressive regimes.

We cannot know all of the potential threats that Canada may face in the future, so we must continue to expect the unexpected. That is exactly what the Canada first defence strategy has tried to do. That is exactly what these estimates seek to support, sound and balanced investments across the four key pillars of military capability: equipment, personnel, infrastructure and readiness.

Our forces deserve nothing less. Through relief and reconstruction in Haiti, through success in Libya, through progress in Afghanistan, through global partnerships in support of international peace and security, they are achieving their objectives, our objectives, magnificently.

As a former prime minister, one who I know is very dear to the memory of our current Minister of National Defence, Sir Robert Borden, once said, “We must not forget that days may come when our patience, our endurance and our fortitude will be tried to the utmost.” That level of commitment has an honourable place in our history. That level of commitment has an honourable place in today's debate on these estimates, the Canadian Forces and how we as Canadians support them.