Mike Lake

[February 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I took note of the member's questions, both last week and again this week. Both questions are important in light of tonight's debates.

Last week, she asked the minister about foreign security provisions in the Investment Canada Act. The minister responded that the national security aspect was included in the law in 2009. Unsatisfied with the answer, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands stood up in the House yesterday and asked the following. She said:

Mr. Speaker, last week I put a question to the Minister of Industry relating to the Chinese takeover of Canadian resources.

He said I was unfamiliar with the Investment Canada Act changes of 2009.

She went on to say:

In fact, the Canada Gazette of September 30, 2009 said:

Then the member quoted from the Canada Gazette, just as she did now:

The term national security should be explicitly defined and national security reviews should take place according to concrete, objective, and transparent criteria. This recommendation was not accepted— Then the member said today, “close quote”.

The trouble is, if you read the Canada Gazette it is not a closed quote. It actually goes on to say something else. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was wrong for two reasons. First, she was quoting from a summary of comments and responses to the gazetting of national security provisions in the summer of 2009. She was not quoting from the regulations themselves. Further, she cut the quote in half, as I just mentioned.

The full quote from those comments and replies is as follows. The Canada Gazette states:

4) The term national security should be explicitly defined and national security reviews should take place according to concrete, objective, and transparent criteria. This recommendation was not accepted since national security threats are dynamic in nature and, therefore, constantly evolve. Neither Part IV.1 of the ICA nor the Regulations define the term “national security” since future threats to national security cannot be predetermined and any such definition may limit the government’s flexibility to respond to future threats.

That is the complete quote.

However, that does not mean that national security provisions do not exist. How do I know that? Because they are not hard to find. We just have to grab a BlackBerry or an iPad and go to www.ic.gc.ca. If the hon. member wants, after we are done here she can come over and I can show it to her on my iPad. They have been there for more than two years. I would ask the member to go and read that section of the website and the associated regulations before getting up to ask her next incorrect question.

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the original question by the member did touch on science and technology and the government's approach to science and my answer therefore reflected that. We do not know ahead of time what line of questioning the opposition might take when it goes into these late show debates, but I did try to address the issue he brought up in his original question.

In his intervention the member also brought up the census. He is right, the government has changed the long form census. It is no longer mandatory. We now have a national household survey because we do not believe that Canadians should be threatened with fines and jail time because they do not want to tell the government what their religion is or how much housework they do or how many bedrooms they have in their house. That is something this government will not do.

We changed the guidelines and changed what was a mandatory long form census to the national household survey.

We will continue to respect the privacy of Canadians.

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with the member on industry committee, as I have since he was elected.

Our government has shown a strong and longstanding commitment to science and technology since the release of our science and technology strategy in 2007. The strategy recognizes the important link between knowledge and the capacity to innovate in the global economy. What is more important than having a strategy is that we have been implementing it.

Years one and two of Canada's economic action plan provided $6.3 billion in science and technology investment, and budget 2011 provided an additional $700 million. Every federal budget of this government has increased S and T investments. At a time when other countries are struggling to maintain the stability of their funding for research, science and innovation, Canada is moving forward.

Our country now attracts the best and brightest minds in many scientific fields. Over the summer, the Prime Minister announced the 2011 Vanier scholarships. These are valued at $50,000 per year for up to three years. We also announced the first recipients of the Banting fellowships, which provide $70,000 each year for two years to top-tier post-doctoral talent. In June, as part of budget 2011, we announced the creation of 10 new Canada excellence research chairs, a program that offers $10 million over seven years to internationally recognized researchers and their teams to conduct their work at Canadian institutions.

Through these programs and many others, our government is supporting academic research at the highest level. Measured as a percentage of GDP, Canada's higher education expenditures on R and D are the highest in the G7.

We have more work to do. We recognize that despite high levels of federal support for research and development, Canada continues to lag in business R and D spending, commercialization of new products and services, and thus in productivity growth. That is why we asked an independent panel of experts to review federal investments in business R and D and to provide advice on optimizing this support.

In October, the expert panel led by Mr. Tom Jenkins provided recommendations on maximizing the effect of federal programs promoting business innovation. We are carefully considering the panel's recommendations.

Our government has a plan that we set out in 2007. The real test is not putting out plans but implementing them. We have demonstrated that we are on the right track and we will stay the course in science, technology and innovation.

[February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's characterization of what the Minister of Natural Resources said is completely incorrect. He was not referring to every intervener. He was saying that we need to have a process that makes sense to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of the Canadian economy.

What does the hon. member think would happen if we did not have the option to sell our natural resources to other countries around the world? What would happen to the Canadian economy? What would happen to the jobs in the tourism sector in Canada if Canadians were not able to travel around the country because they would not be able to afford to without jobs?

We have created over 600,000 net new jobs. The Liberals stand in the way of that at every opportunity and this is just another example of that.

[February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I note that, in regard to approved destination status, even in her own words she pointed out that that was yet another thing that, after 13 years in power, mostly in majority, the Liberals were just about to get done. If they had only had another 13 years, perhaps they would have actually gotten around to it. However, that is something this government actually delivered on and she pointed out the many benefits that have resulted because of the Prime Minister's actions in that regard.

Our government's number one priority is jobs and economic growth. To that end, we have created over 600,000 net new jobs in Canada since the depths of the recession. Tourism is an important creator of jobs and economic growth in this country, so I am proud to be here today to speak about the actions that this government has taken to support Canada's tourism sector.

In 2010, overseas arrivals to Canada reached 4.5 million, a 6.9% increase over 2009 arrivals. Canada received almost 232,000 travellers from China alone in the first 11 months of 2011, from January to November, an increase of almost 24% or 44,420 travellers over the same period in 2010. We can expect continued growth from this market due to the government's efforts in obtaining approved destination status with China announced in 2009.

With approved destination status, Canada's tourism industry is marketing directly to consumers and group tours, accessing a market of some 57 million people who travelled outside of China in 2010. This government supports the sector in many ways, including marketing Canada to the world through the internationally recognized work of the Canadian Tourism Commission, operating national parks, supporting the hosting of international events, facilitating access and investing in infrastructure.

Last fall, the federal tourism strategy was launched and it is coordinating federal efforts related to tourism, enhancing the federal government's role as an effective partner with industry and other levels of government to improve the competitiveness of Canada's tourism sector. In fact, the Prime Minister, who is currently in China, just launched the Canadian Tourism Commission's new 2012 tourism marketing campaign in China.

With the FTS, Canada is poised to take advantage of tourism opportunities. For example, in Brazil, the Canadian Tourism Commission, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Transport Canada respectively have stimulated demand for travel to Canada, enhanced visa processing capacity and concluded a new air service agreement. As well, the CTC launched its signature experiences collection to recognize small and medium size businesses that exemplify Canada's tourism brand.

Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency are engaging with representatives of the tourism industry to examine the operational design and administration of the foreign convention and tour incentive program and to explore the feasibility of changes that would improve the program's effectiveness. Going forward, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada will create a suite of online tourism development tools for use by community-based organizations. These are just some of the proactive measures that we have taken in support of Canadian tourism.

By implementing the federal tourism strategy, the government will be more coordinated and responsive in the areas of greatest importance to the competitiveness of Canada's tourism industry, a sector that contributed nearly $74 billion in revenues to the Canadian economy in 2010, of which $15 billion were export revenues.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this legislation is among the most consulted on pieces of legislation that I have seen in the six years I have been a member of Parliament, consulted on with Canadians from coast to coast.

We ran two town halls in Montreal and Toronto. We had nine round tables across the country: Vancouver, Calgary, Gatineau, Winnipeg, Halifax, Edmonton, Quebec City, Toronto and Peterborough. We had 8,000 formal submissions and 2,000 comments posted on an online forum by Canadians. We had hours of speech. I believe altogether right now we have had 27 hours and 5 minutes of speeches within the House of Commons on the legislation.

The bill addresses the needs expressed by Canadians. I do not know whether the hon. member will be on the committee, but he will have the opportunity to work, through his colleagues in the NDP, to have his voice represented in the committee hearings if he wants to, and we will have further hearings to hear from witnesses who we have not heard from before.

Rest assured that the bill reflects the interests of Canadians as they have been expressed. We urge the quick passing of the bill in the interests of all Canadians.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the hon. colleague on the copyright committee, the legislative committee to study this legislation.

The bill is all about finding the balance between the creators of copyright material and Canadian consumers. We want to ensure that we have a regime that rewards creators for their work. Right now the existing legislation does not deal with these new technologies in a way that would allow creators to be compensated fairly for their work. We want to ensure that we create an environment where consumers are paying for the music they listen to, that they are paying for the movies they watch, that they are not watching pirated copies, and that they are paying for the books they choose to read. We want to create an environment where that exists. That environment is not protected right now to the extent that it should be. The bill is all about that.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

We live in an increasingly digital society with Canadians spending more time online than ever before. We are creating new and powerful information and communications technologies that are transforming our economy. These digital technologies have had an enormous impact on how people can develop, transform, distribute and make use of copyrighted works.

To be sure, this impact does not come without challenges, primarily the imperative of combatting the theft of copyrighted materials. However, it also creates opportunities which, with the right framework, can be seized by Canadian creators and consumers to add enormous value to our economy.

Consumers today use copyrighted material in ways that were not available a decade ago. Today's technology allows us to copy the films and music we bought onto our personal devices, shifting it from one format to another. We have the ability to back up our pictures on computers or on the cloud. Gone are the days when we had to watch our favourite program at a certain time. We can now time-shift programs by recording them on a PVR, or simply by streaming the content off the web to enjoy at our convenience. Bloggers and vloggers are finding new and exciting ways to create their own non-commercial web content, posting it on YouTube for the world to see.

Today I would like to direct the attention of the House to one particular sector of consumers, those who would use digital technology for educational purposes.

The explosion of digital choices presents many opportunities to the education sector. Perhaps nowhere is the potential of the digital society more exciting than in the field of education. The Internet has made available educational material that was once much more difficult to access. Online learning has created new opportunities for all Canadians, especially those in rural and remote locations.

The bill before us would modernize Canada's Copyright Act to address the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age. It would expand the ability of educators and students to make fair use of copyrighted materials in the course of their education and learning. It would also ensure a technologically neutral approach to education, removing references to things like flip charts and overhead projectors. These much needed updates reinforce our government's long-standing policy support for education and training.

Canada's current laws on copyright were last amended before the Internet was available as a powerful educational tool. As a result, the rules around how copyrighted material may be used to support learning have simply lost step with reality. Bill C-11 would correct this problem and ensure that our copyright laws will be able to adapt no matter how the technology evolves. The Copyright Act already acknowledges that certain uses of copyrighted material by educational institutions serve the public good and in many cases provides special flexibilities to foster learning. The bill would enable educators and students to adapt to new and emerging technologies. We want to enhance the traditional classroom experience and facilitate new models for education outside the physical classroom.

We are building on the existing Copyright Act to grant a larger range of uses for copyrighted material. We are expanding a feature of Canadian law known as “fair dealing” to include education. Fair dealing permits individuals and businesses to make certain uses of copyrighted material in ways that do not threaten the legitimate interests of copyright owners and where the use of the copyrighted material could have important economic, societal and cultural benefits. For example, a teacher might provide students with copies of a recent news article that applies to a current lesson.

We also propose allowing teachers and students to use publicly available material found on the Internet, which has been legitimately posted for free by copyright owners, for the purposes of teaching and education. For example, a teacher could make handouts that include an illustration from a website that is freely accessible.

Schools would also be allowed, subject to fair compensation for the copyright holders, to digitally deliver course materials. As well, educational institutions may make a copy of a broadcast of a current affairs program for educational purposes.

The bill would further facilitate online learning. It would allow schools to transmit lessons which include copyrighted sections over the Internet. This would allow, for example, a student in Nunavut to access an online course offered by the University of Alberta. What could be more important for education in a country as vast as Canada than to make sure students in all regions, including Canada's north, have better opportunities to learn?

We are also proposing new measures aimed at supporting libraries, archives and museums in the preservation of our culture. Libraries would be permitted to make copies of copyrighted material in an alternative format if there is a concern that the original is in a format that is in danger of becoming obsolete. Moreover, libraries would be able to electronically deliver material, such as scholarly or scientific journal articles, through interlibrary loans.

These changes are not only important, they are vital to ensure that the products from innovative creators will not be disadvantaged under the law. By extending the fair dealing provisions to the realm of education, we will improve the educational environment, giving Canadians the opportunity to learn in innovative and dynamic environments. At the same time, we will reduce the costs for fair uses of copyrighted materials in a structured educational context.

These changes will bring our educational environment into the 21st century.

As Paul Davidson, the president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said:

This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada.

The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada also responded positively to Bill C-11, saying:

Ministers of education recognize that this federal copyright legislation will have significant implications for how the Internet is used by students and educators across Canada.

Its support is echoed by over 1,000 organizations and associations which have come out in support of copyright reform.

The Government of Canada has also made significant investments in Internet infrastructure, education and skills development. The bill would reinforce and complement those investments.

We are in the process of implementing our strategy for the digital economy, a key element of which is ensuring that we have modern laws and regulations. We passed important new anti-spam legislation and introduced a bill to update privacy laws. These measures will build confidence among consumers, cut costs for businesses and protect the rights of Canadians.

The copyright modernization act will help to advance Canada's strategy for the digital economy. It will assist us in making better use of our substantial investment in education and digital infrastructure. It will help protect innovation and attract new investment, enabling Canadian consumers to make the most of new technologies, while ensuring that creators are fairly compensated for their work.

I encourage all hon. members to join me in supporting this important bill.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the Liberal member's defence was that the previous Liberal government only wasted $800 million on the gun registry.

I am from an urban riding. In my riding, this issue is probably one of the most corresponded on issues in my six years as an MP, probably running about 95% in favour of abolishing the long gun registry.

From the hon. member's standpoint, why does he thinks Canadians feel so strongly about the need to get rid of the long gun registry?

[Improving Trade Within Canada Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement on internal trade is an evolving process and it will continue to evolve. This government will continue to be focused on all factors within the agreement.

In regard to energy, it is not helpful when members of the New Democratic Party travel down to the U.S., our largest trading partner, and lobby against the interests of Canadians. That is absolutely not helpful when we are dealing with issues on energy security.

What is also not helpful in the area of our energy sector, which tends to be driving the Canadian economy and the social programs that we hold so dear here, is parties proposing things like a carbon tax, which the hon. member's colleague from Vancouver Island just recently raised again. It has been part of the election platforms of both the Liberal Party and the NDP in previous elections. That is not helpful to the Canadian economy.