House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
Taxation October 27th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the government is taking boutique tax credits to a whole new level.
Millions of lower-income Canadians want their children to play hockey or take piano lessons, or would like to volunteer as firefighters. Under this government, millions of lower-income Canadians, who do not earn enough to pay taxes, will not get the tax credit.
Why is the government leaving lower-income families out in the cold with their noses pressed to the window looking in?
Copyright Modernization Act October 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the point raised by my colleague. It is not a good idea to put people in jail for such reasons. But Bill C-11 is not surprising given that the Conservatives want to put almost everyone in prison.
Copyright Modernization Act October 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the most charitable response is to say that my colleague's quote by the Association of Universities and Colleges is incomplete. It is not completely happy with this bill.
I happen to have with me a direct quote by James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Here is what he said:
We are pleased that the Bill reflects the priorities of Canada’s academic and research community to expand fair dealing specifically for educational purposes.... This represents a genuine effort to introduce balance into Canadian copyright law.
That is the part that my hon. colleague likes. Mr. Turk went on to say:
At the same time we are disappointed that the legislation makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, even for lawful reasons such as fair dealing.
That was precisely my point and it is precisely stated by the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
Copyright Modernization Act October 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about the bill before the House.
Since I have spent more of my life as a teacher in a university than as a politician, I thought I would focus on the implications for the university and college sector.
In this regard there is both good news and bad news. The bill gives the educator something positive and in another way takes that back. I am referring to the new fair dealing rights and exceptions, where education is now included. This will make it somewhat easier for teachers in the classroom to use certain materials without arduous cost.
Some of the producers have objected to this, but my impression is that it is a positive thing. Some teachers want to innovate. An example would be teachers who want to show a one-minute clip of a movie to make a point, but currently they cannot do that without paying very high copyright fees.
The impact of this new education right on producers will be less negative than some have claimed. This is because in determining what is considered fair, our courts use a two-step test created by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether a use is fair or not. The first step is to determine whether the use of a work is for one of the fair dealing purposes listed in the act. The second step is to assess the fairness of the use against six factors, including the amount of the work used and the effect of the use on the market for the work. Using this test, our courts have consistently determined that the scenarios envisioned by creators, unmitigated free copying with no payments, is not fair and thus is not permitted.
A clear definition of what is fair should be included in the act. One way to accomplish this would be to embed the Supreme Court's two-step test into the act itself.
That overall is positive, fair, reasonable and balanced. The problem comes with the issue of the digital locks.
Bill C-11 introduces new rights for Canadians to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, such as format shifting, time shifting and making backup copies, but Bill C-11's new digital lock provisions override these new rights. In other words, under this new law, if a company puts a digital lock on a CD, the person who buys the CD cannot circumvent the lock to put the music on to his or her iPod without breaking the law. This exact issue was a highly controversial change which was fought when the Conservatives' previous copyright bill was introduced.
A long list of leading academics, educators, librarians, archivists, documentary filmmakers and citizens have expressed legitimate concern that digital lock provisions will undermine the balance that copyright law is intended to strike between creators and users, completely undermining a user's ability to use copyrighted works that they have purchased.
Several experts, including Canadian research chair, Professor Michael Geist, have suggested an easy way to fix this would be to amend the bill to make it okay to circumvent a digital lock if the purposes for which a lock was circumvented were lawful. This would be an easy amendment to make to the bill. It would preserve that better balance which I think most of us are seeking.
Because restrictive digital locks can effectively undermine consumer rights articulated in the copyright law and the very balance copyright law seeks, and because the Conservatives have made no attempt to change their stance on digital locks, that is sufficient reason for the Liberals to oppose the bill.
Going back to my example of education, the bill makes it easier for educators to use materials in their classrooms, but then it negates that advantage by bringing in these digital locks which, under certain circumstances, would make it illegal for the professor to produce the clip or other material which he or she wished to use in class. It would be lawful to use that material in the class, but because of the digital locks, it would be unlawful to produce the material which it is legal to use. That makes no sense. That is why we in the Liberal Party are extremely concerned about this issue of digital locks.
G8 Summit October 18th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the President of the Treasury Board, in a Tweet, why the labour minister could speak for herself under attack in the House, while he cowered behind the foreign affairs minister.
He answered. He actually answered, albeit by Tweet, that the foreign affairs minister responded because he was the one in charge of G8 funding.
My question is for the Treasury Board President. Does this mean he will not answer G8 questions at his long-awaited appearance before committee?
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act October 5th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
As a former defence minister, I know without a doubt that we need those jets. The question is not whether or not we should purchase these jets, because we need them to defend Canada, to defend our territory. Rather, the question is whether there should have been a competitive bidding process. I am very much in favour of a bidding process.
The government is not being honest when it ignores the fact that the cost of these jets has doubled and that a competitive bidding process would have saved it at least a few billion dollars. That is what the government should do.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act October 5th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The speed at which we should change our course depends on the speed of the changes in the world. The world has changed dramatically. As I already said in my speech, some 10 months ago, everything was fine and people were not nervous; they had confidence. Now the opposite is true. For that reason, I think the government needs to change its course rather significantly and quickly.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act October 5th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. There are certain things that the government could do, but it will probably not do them. For example, it could restore corporate taxes to their previous levels, call for tenders for the fighter jets or refrain from building so many prisons. That way, we could finance some things, but it is not likely that the government will do things that way.
Since a slowdown is inevitable and it is not likely that the Minister of Finance will meet his deficit objectives, if we were to return to a balanced budget a few years later than expected, it would be acceptable in light of economic situation. I think that is what the head of the IMF said.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act October 5th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her point. However, those are two separate subjects.
I stand by what I said: now is not the time to raise employment insurance premiums. I suspect she would agree with me on that issue, but I will not put words in her mouth.
I also agree that there is an element of unfairness with regard to those who receive benefits and those who do not. Coming from Ontario, I recall statistics showing that it was particularly difficult for Ontarians to qualify, so I do think there is potential for reform in the area that she describes.
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act October 5th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member was listening to my speech and I am not sure he knows much about EI premiums, because I do not think his statements make much sense.
The problem is with the government's policy on EI. I agree that in the long run we must balance the EI books. However, the Conservatives' system of balancing it very quickly, over two or three years, carries the consequence that they will be raising EI premiums during a recession, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
The Conservatives held off for a year or two by freezing premiums, by overriding their system, but now they are going sharply up in EI premiums just when the Canadian economy is at greatest risk.
I have spoken to many experts on the EI system. All of them, the actuaries and all the others, agreed that it makes no sense to rebalance the EI books so quickly, because it means that premiums would be raised just at the time when Canadian workers and the Canadian economy are at their most vulnerable.