James Moore

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was having some meetings but I noticed that my hon. colleague, the official languages critic for the NDP, was here in the House to speak in this debate. I just noticed that we have had over the past day and a half very good debates in the House on copyright reform. Different parties have come forward with their views and hopefully that legislation will go to committee.

Obviously, there is plenty of room for discussion and debate with regard to foreign direct investment, the degree to which it is beneficial to Canada and the degree to which the government should or should not respond to the regime in which we approach these considerations, but there is no need to yell and scream and attack people's motives on this issue. There are plenty of examples.

As a matter of fact, the largest employer in the riding of the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster is Electronic Arts Sports, an American-owned video game software company that is hiring thousands of his constituents in Burnaby—New Westminster in the video game and software development industry. It is massively profitable. That is a direct example of foreign direct investment into his own riding. That is the largest employer in his riding, with high-paying, high-quality jobs in the tech sector. That is foreign direct investment hiring Canadians.

There are examples, certainly with regard to natural resources in different regions of the country that have different pressures and different dynamics, and members opposite are more than welcome to raise those concerns. We can have a debate about them and that is fine. However, the one thing I wanted to underline is that it is not all bad but it is not all good and the government has a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of Canadians, the net best interest as the legislation describes.

What I wanted to clarify is the member's attack, frankly, on the members of Parliament from Saskatchewan. There are 14 members of Parliament elected from the province of Saskatchewan and 13 of the 14 are Conservatives. It is different when one is on the governing side of the House of Commons. I can say that the members of Parliament who are over here, including you, Mr. Speaker, and I see the member from Saskatoon and others, work incredibly hard, and just because they do not turn red and yell it into a television camera does not mean that they are not working very hard for the people of Saskatchewan. I can say that they are.

This is a very difficult issue and they took their responsibilities seriously to balance the best interests of all of Canada and their constituents, and they did their job.

[Canadian Heritage, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, of course all Edmonton area residents and certainly the members of Parliament are very proud of the great philanthropic work that has gone on in the city of Edmonton to support this institution.

However, let us be clear. Our government has already created two new national museums in the term of our mandate.

We created the museum of immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax and we also have created the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. So we have created two new national museums. That is a large capital and operational investment of this government, and we are not going to be entertaining new offers for new national museums.

[Copyright, November 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last summer when the Minister of Industry and I went across the country and had consultations and got ideas for our new copyright legislation, we listened to a lot of great ideas that led to our balanced and responsible copyright reform.

What we have rejected is what the coalition opposite is proposing which is a brand new $75 tax on every iPod, iPhone, cell phone, BlackBerry, laptop computer in the country, which would hurt consumers, hurt students, hurt young Canadians in a way that is absolutely counterintuitive to having modern copyright legislation. Making it more expensive for Canadians to consume Canadian culture goes counter to the interests of Canada's cultural communities. It punishes consumers and hurts Canadians.

[Arts and Culture, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the member is not really familiar with this situation, because if she knew the facts, she would know that the Canada Council already has 11 programs to assist artists on the international scene. Do we really need a 12th or 13th or 14th program? The Canada Council's budget has been increased so it can assist artists, help them directly with the funds our government has provided, the taxpayers’ money. The budget has been increased by 20%. They have 11 programs to assist artists on the international scene. They do not need a 12th program.

[Violence in Sports, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as, of course, the science and medical science in this has progressed, the need for concern has been raised among Canadians. I know the minister responsible for sport and the Minister of Health are obviously looking at this file and are engaged with local amateur sport organizations across the country to ensure that we have a response that is comprehensive and responsible.

[Violence in Sports, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of State for Sport and the Minister of Health are very involved in this file. We will work with organizations on the ground, such as volunteer organizations for children, to ensure that our sporting events are safe for children.

[Official Languages, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely wrong and the Minister of Industry has indicated this on several occasions.

However, I would like to just repeat again to this House, so that people are aware, what the Commissioner of Official Language's report has to say.

He reports that since our government took office, complaints with regard to the public service application of Canada's Official Languages Act have dropped by 35% last year and 22% this year, which has delivered results for both of Canada's official languages.

[Official Languages, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gatineau for his question because it gives me the opportunity to refer to some key figures in the report by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

On page 8 of the report, he advises Canadians that the number of admissible complaints in the area of official languages services to the public has dropped by 35% since our government came into power in 2006.

We are delivering the goods when it comes to official languages. It is thanks to our roadmap that we are able to deliver the goods as far as Canada's two official languages are concerned. And I mean both of them.

[Government Priorities, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we always listen to them. That is why, in four budgets tabled and passed in this House, we have demonstrated strong support for the artists of Canada's cultural community. We have increased investments in culture. In fact, this government has made additional investments by creating new national museums and making new investments in festivals and in the Canada Council. We are making significant and responsible investments in the cultural community.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 2nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, first, I agree with the point on which my hon. colleague began and ended his speech.

Yes, we are open to suggestions on how to improve this and ensure this goes forward. I appreciate the NDP's support to send the bill to a legislative committee. The reason why we would want to send it to a legislative committee, as I said, is so we can be open to receiving ideas that make sense.

I did want to push back and perhaps disagree with my hon. colleague, and he will have the last word to disagree with my disagreement. I have a couple of points.

First, I agree with him. Obviously the DMCA experience in the United States is something that we chose not to do as a government. We chose not to go in that direction.

There is one key element of the DMCA in the United States that he and I agree on and that we do not think is a good Canadian policy, and that is the idea of notice and take-down, which is in the American dynamic. We have proposed in the legislation notice and notice. We think that is pro-consumer and errs on the right of individual citizens rather than the presumption of guilt. We think that is the right thing to do.

His private member's bill with regard to the private copying levy is badly written. It is one thing to criticize the government for what is in the bill and another to criticize it for not putting things in the bill. There is a reason it does not address the private copying levy in the legislation. The proposals that came forward in our consultations were just unworkable. They did not make sense in the modern era.

The member's private member's bill is, with respect, badly written and it would not pass through the House of Commons even though the member may have some allies on the other side of the House of Commons who agree with him in principle. The member's own proposal is, frankly, unworkable.

With regard to education and libraries, the member criticized some elements of the bill. By the way, this is a perfect example in this very debate about the balance that our government has tried to strike. The Liberal critic for industry has said that our government has gone too far in support of students and suggested that we had not done enough to allow people who wrote textbooks to be compensated. My hon. colleague is saying that the things we put in place in the legislation with regard to education materials after a course is done go too far in the other direction.

Therefore, we have tried to strike the right balance. Did we get it right in the end? Well, time will tell. We think we have given a real genuine effort here to try to get it right.

With regard to libraries, the member said that librarians were upset about the legislation. That is factually not true. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries said, “we applaud the government”. It said that it had responded to the copyright reform concerns expressed by the library and education community. It said that the government had clearly listened to what the library and education community had said.

This is what we have tried to do with the bill. We have tried to get it right. If the member has a reasonable proposal, he should bring it forward. We tabled the legislation five months ago. We are waiting for substantive, specific amendments to it, which will actually improve it and ensure that Canada stays on the cutting edge of intellectual property law.