James Rajotte

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Lansdowne Technologies is a subsidiary of Canada Steamship Lines and Lansdowne can call on CSL for support in its contracting with the federal government. Lansdowne's clients read as a who's who of the federal government: Transport Canada, National Defence, Foreign Affairs, Health Canada, Consulting and Audit Canada and many more departments.

Is it not true that the new Liberal leader will have to rise from the cabinet table with regard to every matter regarding space, health, the RCMP and national defence because they all have contracts with Lansdowne Technologies?

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's argument with respect to Lansdowne Technologies simply does not make sense. CSE Marine Services, a sister company to Lansdowne, is included in the declaration of the new Liberal leader's assets. Lansdowne, in the same situation, is not. Clearly there is a problem with his public declaration.

My question again to the finance minister is, why was it included in 1994 and 1995 and excluded in 1996 and afterward?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us review these repayments. First of all, an $8 million loan to Western Star Trucks; repayment, zero. An $84 million loan to Pratt and Whitney; repayment, zero. An $85 million loan to Bombardier; repayment, zero.

The fact is, and the minister knows this, less than 2% of TPC loans have been repaid since 1996. Why is the government giving away taxpayer dollars with no intention whatsoever of recouping them?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, corporate welfare is alive and well in the Liberal government. Fred Bennett, former director at Industry Canada, has publicly stated that officials in the department deliberately set up loan programs in such a way that money would likely never be repaid.

Why are programs such as Technology Partnerships Canada designed in such a way to ensure that taxpayers' money is never repaid?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is a massive subsidy program that offers less and less accountability.

Despite being billed as a job creation program, TPC no longer distinguishes between jobs created and jobs maintained. In fact, in some cases taxpayers are paying millions to create two or three jobs. According to its own figures, a $1.25 million contribution to Messier-Dowty Inc. of Ajax will create two jobs at a cost of $625,000 per job.

In addition, it cost Industry Canada more money to administer TPC last year than it actually collected in repayments. In fact, TPC has collected less than 1.3% of the money it is owed under its so-called strategic investments.

We do not blame the companies applying for these grants. We fault the government for its corporate welfare policies and its complete failure to properly account for taxpayer dollars.

It is time for the Liberal government to put an end to corporate welfare in Canada.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very important point, which is that municipalities very much come under provincial constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutionally, they are creatures of the provinces, as we know, so it is important for the federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction here.

Obviously the way we would like to see it work is that the federal government would negotiate with the provinces, vacate that tax room and allow the provinces to then discuss it with the municipalities. As for the way it would work in practice, if the federal government vacates from Alberta, in the Peace River area where the member is from, or in the Edmonton-Leduc area where I am from, obviously the people in Leduc and Edmonton and Peace River know their infrastructure priorities better than 301 members of Parliament or the bureaucrats in Ottawa.

So in practice the way it would work is that the federal government would vacate it and negotiate it with the province. Hopefully the entire tax room would be used for infrastructure, but if it were felt that all the needs could be addressed and the citizens of the province could be given a tax cut, that ultimately would be up to each province to determine.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I entirely understand the question. The member is free to ask a supplementary if I do not address it.

Frankly, this motion is general enough that it allows for discussions with the provinces and municipalities to occur. Obviously they would have to identify their priorities in terms of the funding. Would every project be funded? I think it is safe to assume that not every one would be. There obviously would have to be an introduction of priorities.

The question of how much was asked. The member talked about the federal government raising about $4.8 billion in gasoline taxes. The Canadian Automobile Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have pointed out that less than 5% of this is returned to Canadians in the form of federal highway funding, yet if we look at the provincial governments such as Nova Scotia's, for instance, it collects about $215 million annually from fuel taxes and its annual budget for highways is $180 million, or 83% of its fuel tax budget.

So I think we could certainly move from a 5% figure. If we moved substantively closer toward a 75% to 80% figure, I would certainly be happy with that; frankly, I think if we did that it would go to addressing the major infrastructure needs in communities all across Canada.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in my view if members want to make gasoline taxes and the transfer of funds to municipalities for their infrastructure a main program of their future plan, and they consider it important, they should address that issue fully. I will address it that way. Viewers can read Hansard and check the record, and see who thought it was important.

I would like to address the issue of gasoline taxes. A lot of Canadians have contacted my office and complained about gasoline prices, but what they should really be complaining about in this country is gasoline taxes.

At the provincial level, gasoline taxes have risen representing anywhere from 35% to 51% of the gas price. If we compared this on an international level it is about the second lowest in the world. The price at the pump with taxes is about 10¢ a litre higher than gasoline in the U.S. Canada is the second lowest. Gasoline here is 10¢ a litre higher primarily because of gasoline taxes. The frustration is that these gasoline taxes are not going toward addressing what they are specifically designed for which is the infrastructure needs in our communities.

In 1995 the new Liberal leader introduced the federal gasoline tax. He increased it from 8.5¢ to 10¢ a litre as a deficit reduction measure. There is a major problem with this measure. It was introduced temporarily as a deficit reduction measure. The federal deficit was eliminated six years ago, but the tax remains. This is simply wrong. We must address the infrastructure needs of our communities across this country.

I call on the government to support the Canadian Alliance motion and initiate immediate discussions with the provinces so that we can address our infrastructure needs through existing taxes without increasing the burden of taxation that Canadians already have.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to support the Canadian Alliance motion that addresses this serious national issue. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should initiate immediate discussions with the provinces and territories to provide municipalities with a portion of the federal gas tax.

I want to explain why my party is introducing this motion. It is to address the infrastructure needs of municipalities and communities across this country. In May 2001 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities made the following statement:

Traditional sources of municipal spending have proven to be insufficient to prevent an accelerating decay in the state of municipal infrastructure. Billions of dollars are now needed to rehabilitate, upgrade or replace aging facilities and roads. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has long recognized the need for a concerted effort from all orders of government toward long-term solutions.

On a personal and local level, I met with the mayor of Leduc. Leduc is a city south of Edmonton along Highway 2 on the way to Calgary. It is a vibrant community of about 15,000 to 20,000 people. Its mayor is George Rogers, who is also president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. Mr. Rogers is an active local politician who speaks strongly on behalf of his community and its needs. He was talking about the growth of that area around the Edmonton International Airport and the fact that basically, as a municipal politician, he was hamstrung in the sources of revenue he could access to address his infrastructure needs.

He was calling on me and the provincial government to address it. I think from his perspective the feds have simply not stepped up to the plate enough to address these infrastructure needs and I certainly agree with him. Leduc is a community along the Edmonton-Calgary corridor which the Toronto-Dominion Bank pointed out as one of the fourth most vibrant economic corridors in North America. We are certainly going to have to address communities all along that corridor.

I also received a letter from Mayor Bill Smith from Edmonton in which he outlined Edmonton's infrastructure needs. He talked about what the city council had called on us to do. He wrote:

The City of Edmonton has long been advocating stable, sustainable and long term infrastructure investment and fully supports FCM's appeal to the Government of Canada to address the fiscal gap between municipal needs and available resources. At its July 15, 2003, meeting Edmonton City Council adopted the following motion:

“That the City of Edmonton urge Edmonton's Members of Parliament to support the Federation of Canadian Municipalities call for a long term financially sustainable infrastructure program”.

Canadian cities are faced with unlimited civic obligations and limited revenue options. To remain competitive in the world economy and maintain the Canadian standard of living, it is imperative that the Government of Canada implement revenue sharing options to secure long term infrastructure funding for municipalities.

I think that states the case very well.

Further to this, besides the calls from local politicians in my area, the TD Bank Financial Group, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Province of Alberta's Future Summit have released reports in which infrastructure was identified as the most significant issue facing Canadian cities. In fact, the TD Financial Group stated in April 2002:

Canadian cities are beginning to show severe signs of strain after decades of rapid economic and population growth. In many cities, water systems, sewers, and public transportation all require massive new investment, but cash strapped municipalities--who have been asked to take over a growing number of responsibilities from the federal and provincial government in recent years--are in no position to deliver.

I would like to turn to the position of the federal government up to this point. On February 19, 2003, I questioned the finance minister and stated:

Each year Ottawa collects $4.5 billion in gas taxes, but only 5% of that money is returned to Canadians in the form of federal highway funding. The government is ripping off Canadians at the gas pump and not returning benefits to them... The current situation is completely unacceptable to all Canadians. The government has a choice to make, either it dedicates a portion of the federal fuel tax or it transfers the tax to the provinces to allow them to make the funding decisions to address their infrastructure needs.

I asked if the Minister of Finance would consider vacating a portion of the federal gas tax on provinces to allow the provinces room to address their infrastructure needs. The response I received from the Minister of Finance was very clear, “No, absolutely not”. He then went on to state:

Responsibility that the provinces have for areas which are in their jurisdiction is one for which they have entirely the same capacity to raise revenue as does the federal government. Our revenue goes into the consolidated revenue fund and we make choices as to how to spend it.

The Canadian Alliance tried to address this situation. We tried to be a responsible opposition party by putting forward a motion in June which stated:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by a regime of stable funding; and that accordingly, this House call on the government to reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with provinces that, with the creation of this tax room, provinces would introduce a special tax to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

This would have addressed the infrastructure needs in Edmonton and Leduc and other communities across this country. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated by the Liberals with 180 nays and 35 yeas, obviously Canadian Alliance members, and 14 members paired. For those who are viewing this debate today, paired members are those members who do not show up to vote.

It is interesting to note who was a paired member that day. One of the members who was paired was the member for LaSalle--Émard. It is interesting to note that this is one of the primary issues for the new Liberal leader. In fact, he did not even make an effort at that time to come into the House and express a view on whether we should have stable infrastructure funding. Frankly--

[Library and Archives of Canada Act, October 1st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand and address Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence. It is also my pleasure to support the five motions introduced by my colleague, our critic for Canadian Heritage.

As my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have stated, we support the preservation and protection of Canadian heritage, including the documents and artifacts that will be held by the new entity created by the bill.

On a personal note, I am accused often by my staff and others of being both a librarian and an archivist. I love to read and my office is filled with books on many subjects. Plus, with the amount of paper I refuse to throw away, I may consider becoming an archivist if the politics thing does not work out.

As the Canadian Alliance senior critic for industry, my interest in the bill lies primarily with the clauses that affect copyright, clauses 21 and 22, and the subsequent Motions Nos. 20 and 21, both of which seek to delete the copyright clauses.

Copyright is the right of the creator of an original work to authorize or prohibit certain uses of the work or to receive compensation for its use.

I find it quite ironic that in a bill which seeks to promote the work of institutions that have as their mandate to put on display and preserve works to be viewed by the public, we find clauses with the express intent to restricting public access to historical works.

In terms of housekeeping provisions, I also find it strange that copyright amendments were introduced in this fashion. Because copyright issues change so quickly, there is a requirement under section 92 of the Copyright Act, which states:

Within five years after the coming into force of this section--

For example, no later than September 1, 2002.

--the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any recommendations for amendments to this Act.

Clearly, no such revisions have been laid before the House. However I understand that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced in June of this year that it hopes to launch its statutory review of the Copyright Act later this fall.

In addition to this, last year Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage jointly issued a report entitled “Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act”. Surely the Minister of Canadian Heritage could have raised the copyright issue in that report, instead of trying to put it into a bill in which we think it is not appropriate to be there.

These are very technical amendments that concern the protection of unpublished works. In Canada, the standard term of protection for published material is 50 years after the death of the author.

Unpublished works of authors who died before 1949 will come into the public domain on January 1, 2004. In other words, their copyright protection and the opportunity for their family to make any financial gains from work will expire in the new year.

What the legislation would allow is for the heirs of authors such as Lucy Maud Montgomery to maintain control of Montgomery's unpublished diaries a further 14 years in hopes of finding a publisher.

As legislators, and especially in the age of the Internet, we are often asked to be mediators between the protection of creative works in order to allow the creator to preserve his or her integrity and to earn a living, and the opportunity for the general public to enjoy such creative works. It is a difficult balance to strike I admit.

This situation has been recently raised with respect to access to census records. What is a reasonable time period as to how long such information should be kept from public release? For copyright, in my view, 50 years is a reasonable time period.

One of the roles I have as industry critic is to support and promote research and development. R and D is not limited to the lab or to scientific works. It includes written works and works that obviously deal with the human arts. I would not like to further inhibit the work of historical and social researchers for the sake of protecting the possible financial returns of a few families.

Many have noted that copyright protection for unpublished works in the United States has been extended to 70 years after death. This extension was engineered by the Walt Disney Corporation in order to protect its profits.

What is interesting is to actually think about Disney in terms of borrowing from others in order to create the great films that it has in the past. Cinderella was not originally written by Mr. Disney. Beauty and the Beast was not originally written by Mr. Disney, nor was Winnie the Pooh . The fact is that the Disney empire has greatly benefited, as all of us who have watched these films have, by borrowing from works that have fallen out of copyright.

There is no doubt that copyright is important to innovation. It reinforces an author's rights and entitlements to his or her hard work. However, there is also a relationship between the written word and the role it plays in the process of social and political dialogue.

For example, the genome, also known as the book of life, is a map of all the genetic information stored within our cells. The White House intervened in 2000 to make sure the genome would not remain hidden from public view through intellectual property rights protection.

In the case of the genome, compromises were reached to both protect intellectual property and further research. The public has free access to the genome sequence over the Internet, but those who did all the hard work have legal protection against data piracy. In addition, those who want to use the sequence for commercial purposes must negotiate an agreement with one of the organizations that completed the sequencing.

In my opinion, the genome is an excellent example of how we as elected officials can mediate property rights for the greater good.

From an innovation perspective, it is good to see we are speaking more and more about copyright, patents and intellectual property in the House. Most companies that patent scientific research seem to be able to balance the common good with the clear financial rewards of owning intellectual property.

Ideas and creations are part of an innovative economy and country. According to Industry Canada, patents and copyrights are highly correlated with R and D spending. They help us to work better and compete with each other. They stimulate us to experiment and to eventually reap the rewards of our hard work.

However, at some point we need to share these creations and designs with others so that we can learn from our successes, we can learn about each other and we can learn about our failures. It is finding that balance between the protection of intellectual property to reward the creator and the innovator and allowing the public good to have access to that work.

In conclusion, I am supporting the motions introduced by my colleague, particularly to delete clauses 21 and 22.