Wendy Lill

[Business of the House, April 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many residents in Dartmouth. The petitioners are calling on parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to retroactively amend the confidentiality and privacy clauses of the Statistics Act since 1906 to allow, after a reasonable period of time, the release to the public of post 1901 census reports starting with the 1906 census.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments on the pest control products bill.

I happen to be one of the lucky people who lives in one of the municipalities that has a progressive pesticide bylaw in place, and that is the Halifax regional municipality. Over a three year period we will see the elimination of pesticides altogether. First there will be a ban on municipal properties, then in the first, second and third years there will be a ban on schools, day cares, parks and playgrounds with the ban in the final year on all pesticide use. Given that we have heard today we are seeing five to six times higher rates of childhood leukemia because of the use of pesticides, we see how critical this is.

The member has made the comment that we need to see more public awareness campaigns regarding cosmetic pesticides. Can we not take a further step and ask the federal government to set up national standards which would include a ban on cosmetic pesticides?

We have heard from the Alliance that it is up to municipalities to look after that. I do not know what would happen to people who live in those municipalities that do not choose to take the ban seriously. Perhaps they would have to move somewhere else in the country.

Would the member from the Conservative Party support national standards, those national standards being much higher, including a ban on cosmetic pesticides?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer a few remarks at the report stage of Bill C-15B, the second part of the justice omnibus bill, which deals with changes to the gun control registry and cruelty to animals. The section I want to speak to in this group of amendments strengthens the sections of the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals. I support the proposed amendments and am proud to say that my constituents have been very vocal about supporting these amendments as well.

Our laws relating to cruelty to animals are written to exclusively benefit the human. Currently the legislative architecture of the criminal code leaves animals with the legal standing of property. A court must now define the abuses or neglect of an animal as an offence against the right of property. This offers the same protections and defences to the accused as someone who allegedly steals cars or forges credit cards. I find it disturbing that sections of the criminal code which currently forbid cruelty to animals are treated in the same way as possible offences of cruelty to computer equipment.

I am sad to say that after listening to the low level of the attacks on the government position in this debate I am left with the impression that some commenting on this matter care more for their cars or their computers than for their pets or for the animals that provide us with food or clothing.

No one suggests making assault or murder an offence against property. Offences against people are in a much more serious category, with harsher penalties and fewer defences, to reflect the more serious harm our society believes takes place when we commit a crime against a living person as opposed to a crime against property.

I believe that animals are living creatures as well. They feel pain and share this great planet with us. They are a critical part of our ecosystem. They provide comfort, food, clothing, companionship, loyalty and endless entertainment. They deserve better than to be given only the protection of property. That is why I and every single caller to my constituency office support this bill giving animals their own status as creatures that can feel pain.

The vicious opposition being brought to bear against the bill by the Alliance opposition party originally puzzled me. After all, concerns of farmers, fishermen, hunters and trappers were dealt with by ensuring that they would still have many of the defences they possess in the existing code available to them and would therefore not be subject to frivolous prosecution or harassment, but I understand the Alliance position a little better now that I have heard this debate. Their position reflects their new leader's attitude toward Canada, which some of us call the fortress Alberta position. Their opposition has little to do with protection of animals or with the bill.

Listen to what we have heard so far today. The Alliance members suggest that we oppose this and also oppose the bill to protect endangered species, as the Klein government has called on them to do. After all, as Klein says, property should have more protection than endangered species. They are saying to oppose the bill and to kill Canada's support for the Kyoto protocols to reduce greenhouse gases and to stop climate change, as Ralph Klein has said they must, because it would cost our poor struggling oil companies some profit. They oppose any attempt to stop global warming but also say that we should kill the bill and start to compensate farmers and cattlemen who are suffering through an extended drought in western Canada.

The bill is not about Kyoto, but I hope they remember that droughts are probably caused by climate change and if they want to help drought stricken farmers we should support Kyoto. One member even accused the former minister of justice of pandering to special interests and playing politics, saying that is why there is support for the bill. As far as I can tell, the bill is not about the last election or deals made by the former minister of justice. It is about animal rights.

Here is my position and I hope it is more to the point than some of the others that have been put on the record today. Animals should have more rights than property. Endangered species are animals as well and therefore they should have rights too. While the bill is not perfect and some of the loopholes such as the inclusion of the words “wilful” and “reckless” introduced by the government water down the original intent, we should pass this and try to improve on it later. I support animal rights and I, along with my other colleagues in the New Democratic Party, will be in support of Bill C-15B at report stage.

[Remembrance Day, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today to support the motion of my hon. friend from Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore to enhance our day of remembrance for the men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice for Canada.

This is not the first time I have tried to deal with the matter in this place. Many years ago a constituent of mine named Brian Warshick repeatedly asked me to make Remembrance Day a holiday in Canada. It had always upset his father, a decorated vet, to watch the news on November 11 and see Torontonians shopping on the hallowed day. I wanted to make the change but I came across the same jurisdictional obstacles my friend from Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore encountered. I want Brian and his father to know that today in the House of Commons we are doing what we can.

Before looking into the legalities of holiday law in Canada I had always thought Remembrance Day was a real holiday, meaning people stopped and did other things apart from commerce, schools and whatever we busy ourselves with. In Nova Scotia schools, malls, courts and offices are closed on November 11. No one would dream of trying to hold a public event in Halifax on November 11 that was not related to Remembrance Day. I have always supported this.

There is nothing special about the devotion of the people of Dartmouth to our military. We honour the military tradition. We remember perhaps a little more because of the Halifax explosion, the hundreds of convoys which have left from our harbour and the hundreds of sons who never came back. However men and women from across the country have never come back. All parts of Canada have supported our forces and our war efforts. The memory of those who fell is honoured in every small and large jurisdiction across the country. We should do anything we can in the House to encourage jurisdictions and provinces to respect the memories of fathers, sons, brothers, sisters and daughters who served Canada and did not return.

Mr. Warshick has nothing against the folks he sees on the news who shop in malls in Toronto. He merely asks that they join him for once in taking this day to reflect on the courage and values we stand for and on the sacrifice his father and the fathers and grandfathers of many here in this room have made on behalf of our country.

Once again I thank the drafter of the motion. I ask that we all support it being made votable in the House of Commons.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member.

I share the city of Halifax-Dartmouth with the member. Some say it is the tailpipe of the continent. We suffer from the smog and pollution that comes up from the eastern states. Our hospitals tell the tale. There are extremely high levels of asthma as the member across the way mentioned.

The member asked when we will correct the problem. I would like to throw the question back to him. One of the very obvious ways we could start dealing with this would be to look at fuel emissions.

A report recently said Canada could improve urban air quality and meet one-third of its Kyoto commitments by enacting stronger vehicle emission regulations right away. I would like to hear what kinds of means the government has to immediately work on very obvious problems such as fuel emissions and regulations around SUVs, which we have been told will not be in place for another five years.

[Arts and Culture, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the cast and producer of the miniseries Trudeau , premiering tonight in Ottawa, are in our gallery today. I want to salute the creators of this important drama.

We hope this series is just the latest success for the CBC, which started with Canada--A People's History and continued with Random Passage and

The Last Chapter. Trudeau has been produced and written by the Big Motion Picture Company and Halifax resident Wayne Grigsby, which have also brought us Black Harbour, North of 60, ENG and

Blessed Stranger.

These are Canadian stories. They talk about the realities of life in our parliament, they look at how small maritime fishing communities face hard times, they explore the passions of life near the Arctic Circle, and they show us the fast paced relationships of a Toronto newsroom. Programs such as these tell the stories of our people. They let us pause and reflect on what keeps us together, not on what drives us apart.

We should also be frank here. These stories are only told because of a strong public broadcaster, strong Canadian content rules and a strong Telefilm Canada.

I would like to thank Wayne and the cast for telling our stories.

[Jean-Paul Riopelle, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada to recognize the passing of one of Quebec's and Canada's most recognized artists, Jean-Paul Riopelle, at his home in Île-aux-Grues.

It was a pleasure to hear the hon. member for Laurentides offer her personal recollections and images of the man. It added to the memorable occasion this morning.

It is fair to say Riopelle was to Canadian painting and sculpture what Glen Gould was to Canadian music. He was a beacon of creation to others in his craft. His art was a direct expression through his hands of the subconscious feelings in his soul. Monsieur Riopelle's work takes one's breath away. Raw emotions leak from the canvas into one's brain. Like great artists, he saw the world differently. He used his paint to speak to us, express emotions and share with us the briefest glimpse of his vision of the world.

Riopelle was part of a group called the Automatistes whose members believed in the spontaneous transcriptions onto canvas of whatever one's spirit suggested. Riopelle carried that spontaneity into his daily life. Even when his work returned to the realist form of painting his artistic contributions continued.

Riopelle was a clear example to the world that Canadians cannot only create. We produce a unique perspective and have developed a standard of artistic excellence for which we should never apologize. Jean-Paul Riopelle never did.

We salute a great Canadian artist today.

[Parliamentary Telecommunications, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 365. It states:

That this House do install an accessible and functional telecommunication infrastructure so that virtual meetings between parliamentarians from here and around the world may be held for the purpose of participating in regular debates on matters of mutual concern.

I wholeheartedly agree with the direction of the motion. There is a high level of cynicism among Canadians about how we run the country. Certainly one of the main reasons for this is the imperial approach taken by the cabinet and the archaic electoral system we have which allows a minority of voters to control the majority of seats in the Chamber.

These problems require fundamental solutions which the motion does not address. There is no doubt that better communication between parliamentarians and Canadians would help to reduce the cynicism that permeates the country. It would also improve the way the country is run.

Parliamentarians from all sides of this place know that a lot of the real nation building that takes place in parliament is not in the scripted showplace of question period. Far too often the Chamber has become a place of posturing and political one-upmanship, not a place of thoughtful debate on the issues before the nation. There is a quiet desire among MPs from all sides of the House to have more real debates on issues, to explore and challenge opinions and to genuinely represent the diverse opinions of constituents.

Much of this happens in committees. Most Canadians know little or nothing about what happens in parliamentary committees. We have some great examples of MPs from all parties working together in small groups in committees to greatly improve policy and legislation. I was involved in a cultural policy review a few years back and lately we have seen how a committee worked well to explore options to help children at risk and people with disabilities.

There is no doubt in my mind that these important explorations of issues facing Canadians have improved government policy. There is also no doubt in my mind that using technology increases the access of parliamentarians to Canadians, of Canadians to parliamentarians and of parliamentarians to experts on issues from across Canada and around the world. All of this would improve our communication.

I should note that some of this work is already underway. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently conducting a study of broadcasting in Canada. We are already using teleconferencing on a limited basis to discuss matters with experts. We have also seen the immense technological infrastructure available to us in our recent site visits to broadcasters in Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City. I am looking forward to learning more about how this technology is being used in Canada when the standing committee visits Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg next week.

I am a member of the HRDC Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I know that the chair of the subcommittee, the member for St. Paul's, wants to actively pursue new technology options to allow more Canadians with disabilities to participate and follow in the committee's work.

While I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the workings of the new technologies, I would not know a Hertzian wave if it hit me, I do believe that as tools for democracy the new technology is something we need to be using more and more. I congratulate the member on his motion and give it my support.

[Copyright Act, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-48. I want to make some comments on the notion of copyright and intellectual property in general, and Internet retransmission in particular.

I will start off by admitting that I have a personal bias to this topic because I write plays. I receive copyright royalties for my plays. Do not get me wrong; my royalties do not make me rich or in any way compensate me for the hundreds and thousands of hours that it actually takes to create a play. However I do know something about the reality of a royalty.

Therefore I ask my parliamentary colleagues to always remember who we are really talking about when we talk about copyright. We are talking about creators, the Canadians who write, paint, compose and choreograph and who tend to be quite frankly very poor.

The Canada Council says that most make a lot less than $20,000 a year and this includes royalty payments. I feel it is safe to say that the money given to creators for their work is almost always inadequate, but the point I want to make is that our approach to copyright should not be simply a question of money. It really is about much more than money. It should be about recognizing creation.

I know that some will not see it this way. I know for example that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters believes strongly that we must have strict copyright laws to protect the property of its members because to them the copyright is intellectual property, like an electronic mortgage that they should have a lien on or a televised mineral right that they are waiting to strip mine.

I know that many believe and have graphs and numbers to show that the western economies excel because of our recognition of intellectual property. However the so-called knowledge economy seems to fail to recognize that knowledge is simply borrowed creation. Without the creator there is no intellectual property.

If we simply follow the definitions provided by intellectual property treaties, they believe that our patent and copyright laws should always equate the act of writing poetry with the act of protecting the international patent for prozac.

I hope that groups like the Media Content Coalition will understand that strict copyright approaches to copyright reform will not always work. Our current law understands this. We already have exemptions for copyright, law relating to churches, educational institutions and persons with disabilities, but the exceptions are very small and restrictive. Churches can use music without paying royalties as long as there is no gain involved.

An individual can use any copyrighted work for research, private study, criticism, news reporting or reviewing as a fair dealing but the source must always be mentioned.

An educational institution can use a mechanical copy of a copyrighted work for display for testing, examination or translation on its premises for instructional purposes.

Creators are compensated through a government program to allow their works to be freely available through our library system. These flexible approaches are ones that creators want, and I hope the corporate copyright community will agree with the flexible approach to the law.

One unique thing about copyright is what is called the moral right. This is one place established in law where the power of the creator still shines and it shows how different a copyright is from a patent, the physical kind of intellectual property.

While the copyright can be assigned or sold by the creator, the moral right is the creator's right to be associated with the creation and the right to the integrity of the work. This right is always kept by the author or creator or his or her estate. Maintaining integrity means keeping their work from being distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified or used in association with a product, service, cause or institution. Otherwise, no one can use their creation for profit with or without their permission.

In a real way, Bill C-48 tries to address the same principle. The Internet provides a new way to communicate, to research, to entertain and to conduct business, but the technology has also created the ability to take, in effect steal, someone's creation and show it on the Internet without permission, without paying a royalty and without paying any attention to the creators. In fact they are stealing the creation and devaluing the creator.

After all, the television program was written by someone, acted out by someone and the set was designed by someone. By simply taking the creation and using a technological loophole, sending it out over the Internet and using it to sell advertising it is quite offensive to my creative sensibilities.

Bill C-48 changes section 31 of the Copyright Act to allow this loophole to be plugged.The bill would do this while still recognizing some of the more progressive collective approaches taken in our copyright law.

Despite the efforts of some in the corporate world, we have a collective approach to a lot of our copyright law. We do not track down every teenager and sue them every time they tape a CD or burn a copy of their favourite song. Instead, we have a very small charge on blank tapes and CDs which makes its way back to the creator. Frankly, as the parent of two teenagers, I know that this pragmatic approach is all for the better.

When a cable company captures a television signal and replays it to its subscribers, a compulsory licence is created and the equivalent of a royalty is paid. This is a good, pragmatic alternative to having every small cable carrier negotiate with every broadcaster to send its signal.

What Bill C-48 does is extend this system to the wide open spaces of the Internet. Some have proposed that this not be allowed or have suggested that retransmission only be allowed through a secure channel. However, we have to start down the road of dealing with the legal aspects of content on the worldwide web.

We have a responsibility to deal with the inaccurate impression that the Internet is a lawless place. We know in our hearts that laws do apply to cyberspace. We arrest and prosecute child pornographers who lurk online. We prosecute hatemongers and holocaust deniers who try and hide behind web servers.

The CRTC has backed off on regulating the net, but it is patently obvious that the government now has to deal with the details of regulating the net. If it fails in this challenge, then our cultural sovereignty will eventually disappear.

In conclusion, I believe that it is time we also applied the basic dignity of recognition for creation, which we do through copyright, to the Internet. I eagerly await the next bill in this area from the government as it proceeds with copyright reform.

[Canadian Heritage, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and it concerns the ownership of media in Canada.

Canadians are increasingly alarmed about the silencing of diverse viewpoints in the media. Of particular concern are the actions of CanWest Global which has reduced local expressions in its editorials at Southam and is using its TV news to advertise its newspaper holdings.

The Canadian Association of Journalists has asked the government for journalistic safeguards and for a fully inquiry into the matter.

What is the government doing to protect Canadians' access to diverse viewpoints in the Canadian print and Internet media?