Françoise Boivin

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, May 18th, 2012]

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, who do we trust more, let me see, the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the government that changes its tune every day? The Parliamentary Budget Officer also showed that the Conservatives could have created 94,000 new jobs if they had not been so reckless with their cuts. So much for standing up for jobs.

The point is this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer puts out public reports for all Canadians to review. The Conservatives will not even say how much they are going to take away from seniors, so why do they continue attacking Kevin Page?

[Pensions, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that we are not defending him. We do not need to defend him because the Conservatives are misquoting what the leader said previously. We do not need to defend our leader, who wants resources and good jobs for everyone, but not at the cost of harming the environment.

One month ago, the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Finance questioned Kevin Page's competency. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer provided a clear and reasonable response to these unfounded assertions. Mr. Page again proved that the old age security program is sustainable and is not at risk.

Why are the Conservatives continuing to attack the Parliamentary Budget Officer when they are not even capable of providing their own figures?

[Justice, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before I get attacked by the Conservative MPs, I just want to say, so that they do not misunderstand me, that I am not trying to prevent them from preaching the good news in churches. That being said, when they promote their anti-choice political campaign, women have cause to be concerned.

That is not all. The comments made this morning by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin border on hysteria. To him, abortion is nothing less than bullying causing death.

If the Prime Minister is serious about not wanting to reopen the abortion debate, then let him stand up and rein in his caucus member. Otherwise, we will assume the Prime Minister condones these comments.

[Justice, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my God, I do not know what is in the water today.

A year ago, the Conservatives solemnly swore that they would not reopen the abortion debate, yet members of the Conservative anti-choice caucus are at work in churches across the country. The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is circulating a petition in churches with a view to amending section 223 of the Criminal Code, which would open the door to criminalizing abortion. Canadian law is clear: women have the right to choose.

Why do the Conservatives want to use a parliamentary secretary to reopen the abortion debate?

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech. It sounds really nice when it comes out of his mouth. However, I wonder what he tells the various opponents of the bill who still see many shortcomings in it.

It makes me think that, even though the government tells us that enough time has been spent on this bill, not enough time really has been, when you consider the kind of opposition it has raised. For instance, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN, believes that amendments should be made to the bill to facilitate access to creative content on new media, and especially to ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their creative content on new media.

Once again, it is a question of balance. The creation of creative content will eventually drop off, because Canadian creators will no longer be able to make a living from their creations. There is a lot of talk about big digital enterprises and so on. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is the whole issue of the creators, the authors, that is at stake in this change, which is quite extensive, thank you, and which seems to create more problems than it solves.

Copyright lawyer Howard Knopf also objects, as do SODRAC, Jeremy F. de Beer and many others. I could continue in this vein for many more minutes.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what a good question.

In my speech, I talked about the $85 billion that is injected into Canada's economy. However, and this is shocking, by comparison, the average salary of Canadian artists is $12,900. That is terrible. It is below the poverty line.

When you look at a bill like this one through the eyes of an artist, of a person who works in the cultural sector, you may well wonder whether you will see any part of those billions of dollars. The answer is "no" because, in our view, the Conservatives' bill is so unbalanced that we get the feeling its purpose, once again, is to protect the big fish, the major American studios, for example, the major American record companies and so on.

Has anyone looked at this bill through the eyes of a Canadian or Quebec artist? I very much doubt it. This is really not a balanced bill. That is why we have introduced a number of amendments. Unfortunately, as is the case with all other bills, everything has to come from this government, and what comes from other parties is fundamentally bad.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives have this attitude, because we will be inheriting an act that cannot achieve the objectives for which it was drafted.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, who is also doing an absolutely phenomenal job in this area. He is an artist, a musician I very much like listening to.

The figures I cited earlier are absolutely incredible. It is often said that arts and culture are the poor cousins of the economy, but that is definitely not as a result of their impact in our communities. ACTRA estimated that the arts and culture industry in Canada injected $85 billion a year into our economy, which represents 7.4% of Canada's gross national income. That is not peanuts. People attend more shows than hockey games or anything else.

And yet it seems that artists and people who work in the cultural field are forced to spend their lives fighting for money, whether from the Minister of Canadian Heritage or from Quebec's Minister of Culture. I see that in Gatineau. It is a constant struggle, and artists always get the impression of having to beg, of being poor cousins. And yet they ultimately inject an enormous amount of money into the economy.

There are activities and shows in the Outaouais, in Gatineau, among other places. Year after year, for example, L'Outaouais en fête fights for a minuscule grant from Canadian Heritage and is unable to get it. It seems that it is asked for much bigger guarantees than what big businesses are asked for—oil companies, banks or other businesses—on the grounds that it is part of the cultural sector. And yet it is an extraordinary economic organization. It is excellent for us. It represents us in Canada, in Quebec, among other places, where culture and the arts are flourishing so well.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that so many members will hear my speech on Bill C-11.

Before question period, I congratulated my colleagues from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, Timmins—James Bay and Jeanne-Le Ber, who are very passionate about this issue, and I congratulate them publicly again.

Why are they so passionate about it? I am going to give you a few facts that can sometimes be a little surprising. We often say that the government opposite does not like arts and culture because they are not big business, like oil and gas; arts and culture are not as important.

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA, estimates that the arts and culture industries in Canada contribute $85 billion a year to our economy. That represents 7.4% of Canada's gross national income and supports 1.1 million jobs, or about 6% of the Canadian labour force. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can survive only in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

Despite the important contribution of these industries, the average income in 2009-10 for an artist in Canada was only $12,900 a year, which I find very sad. A 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada indicated that the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion. We are talking money and taxes. That is three times the $7.9 billion investment in culture by all levels of government in 2007.

How much does the federal government invest in arts and culture? A meagre 1.6% of total government spending.

I was struck by another telling statistic in connection with this entire issue of copyright and the reform of copyright. In 2008, the Statistics Canada survey on household spending found that Canadians spent $1.4 billion on attending live artistic performances, twice as much as on sports events. And we know how much the government opposite likes to talk about sports and how little it talks about arts and culture.

What does such a change mean? When we look at the bill, it seems rather complicated. That is why I strongly disagree with the government's move to once again force the adoption of a time allocation motion. That forces us to shorten the debates and limit my colleagues' speaking time and right to speak here in this House. Most of my colleagues are here for the first time. It is highly likely that this is the first time in their lives they have heard about the Copyright Act.

In the summary of the bill we see that some changes have been made to the Copyright Act to:

(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards;

We know that the Internet is now a major player when it comes to copyright because a great deal of created material is on the Internet, including movies, music, books, you name it.

The summary also indicates that these changes to the Copyright Act will also:

(b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;

(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form;...

Thus, these amendments to the Copyright Act change many, many things.

The kinds of changes being made to this legislation can be categorized into three main groups: changes defined as sector-specific reforms, compromise provisions, and no-compromise rules regarding technological protection measures.

The NDP is looking to strike a balanced approach. Our party is seeking a balanced system between the rights of creators and those of the public. I hope that all the members of this House want to ensure that the public has access to as much information as possible while protecting copyright, which goes without saying.

With this bill, and with our friends opposite—with whom we are less and less friendly—we get the impression that any efforts have instead focused on meeting the demands of the big owners of American content. They are the big global players in this area. I am referring to film studios, record companies, developers of video games, and others.

Will Canadians one day have a law that meets their needs? That much is not clear, and this legislation will certainly not do the job.

I only have one minute left, which is very little time. I would have liked to discuss a great many things about this bill, which is riddled with shortcomings and defects. Amendments have been proposed, and it is my hope that they will be seriously considered so as to prevent foolish things from occurring. For example, students who are enrolled in distance education because they reside in remote areas would be forced to destroy their notes after a certain number of days.

There are things in the bill that make absolutely no sense. I want to commend those people who work in the area of arts and culture. I particularly salute those people who work very hard for the City of Gatineau and the Maison de la culture de Gatineau, whose board I had the pleasure to chair for a number of years. They do extraordinary work when it comes to disseminating arts and culture. They help new artists, along with well-known artists, to make a name for themselves.

Let us therefore protect artists and, at the same time, ensure that the public enjoys the best possible access to arts and culture.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member opposite, this bill has been the focus of the most studies that this House has ever conducted.

One of my colleagues said it was the nth time, but it seems to me that this government is gagging us for the 21st time by limiting the time for debate. It is not just a question of the time available for study in committee, but also the time granted to the democratically elected representatives. They must be able to rise in this House and express their views on a bill without having a feeling that the gun is pointed at their heads and being told that they have to vote and pass this bill immediately. They must have a chance to sit down and pay particular attention to it, as new members must.

Every time it happens, we hear that this is the bill that has been studied the most often in committee, with the most days, the most hours and the most witnesses. I heard the same thing about Bill C-10; I heard the same thing about Bill C-19; and I have heard the same thing about all the bills that are studied in committee. Now we are hearing the same thing about this very important bill.

This is how the government has decided to proceed. Because of the majority that it got with the support of 39% of the population, this is how we are forced to proceed. We have to bow to this state of affairs and express our views the way they have chosen.

In any event, I would like to congratulate my colleagues for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, Timmins—James Bay, and Jeanne-Le Ber who, in one way or another, have spent endless hours working on the bill, and all those who sat on the committee for never-ending hours. In fact, they spent endless hours studying a bill that will have a major impact, an enormous impact, on the lives of creators and producers and on the lives of consumers, the people from all walks of life that we represent here, in this House. It is our duty to find the right balance to ensure that we respect everyone's rights, but it is not always easy.

Here again, there are numerous amendments to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. There are tons of amendments. Some people will say that these are the amendments that society has been waiting a long time to see. Perhaps they are, but it is not because they are long-awaited that they have to be shoved down our throats.

I understand that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I will continue after question period.

[Firearms Registry, May 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, they cannot even control costs in areas under their own jurisdiction, yet they want to tell the provinces how to operate.

Take, for example, the Minister of Public Safety, who was told to mind his own business this week when he tried to intervene in provincial areas of jurisdiction with respect to firearms registration. Ontario told the minister that it would ignore his attempt to encroach on provincial jurisdiction and would continue to do what needs to be done in the interest of public safety, which is maintain a record of sales.

Will the minister stop interfering in provincial affairs that are none of his business?