Kennedy Stewart

[Petitions, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of a motion I have currently tabled before the House concerning e-petitions. The e-petitions motion sets out to increase democratic participation across Canada, which is currently at an all-time low, by giving Canadians better access to the petitioning process. Of course, if 50,000 signatures were gained on an electronic petition, it would trigger an automatic debate in the House of one hour.

[Petitions, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition has been signed by many constituents concerning the supply of articles for blind individuals.

[International Trade, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all we hear from that side are more broken promises, and here is another one.

Canadians may be surprised to learn that Conservatives tabled a new trade agreement with China this week. Paul Wells from Maclean's reports that the agreement allows arbitration involving Canadian companies to be dealt with behind closed doors.

Why did Conservatives agree to have arbitration done in secret with no transparency? When will they bring the deal before the House for debate and a vote?

[Public Safety, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if the Conservative members would stop making things up about the opposition and tried answering some questions. Let us see if we can get an answer here.

Reuters reports a new computer security breach by a Chinese group, and Calgary-based Telvent was the target. If it were not for the company warning their customers, the public would have never known.

Could the government confirm foreign involvement in this attack? In light of this, could Conservatives tell us if national security is part of the criteria for the Nexen takeover review?

[Science and Technology, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' disregard for environmental science is hurting Canada's global standing and reputation in science and technology. A new study commissioned by the Conservatives themselves shows that under their watch Canada has moved from leader to laggard in environmental and natural resource sciences.

I know that the government dislikes it when evidence gets in the way of its political agenda, but is the minister really satisfied to play catch-up with the rest of the world on scientific research?

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-427.

Before I comment directly on the bill, I want to commend my colleague from Montreal for his work on this issue. He is a two term national vice-president of ACTRA, an accomplished actor, singer, songwriter, composer, director and writer. I really cannot think of a better person in the House to work on this issue.

I had a nice surprise yesterday that that really speaks to why I strongly support Bill C-427. Between the ages of 15 and 25 I played music professionally and often considered making music my career. Yesterday a former The Raspberry Jam band mate, Randy Kee, posted some old VHS footage on YouTube, which brought back memories of the time when playing music was probably the most important thing in my life.

In addition to allowing me to take a trip down memory lane, the video made me think not only about the artists with whom I worked but also the artists I currently admire and those in my community who really work hard but sometimes struggle to get by. The bands I am thinking of are 3 Inches of Blood, Fera, Wintersleep, Japandroids, Hey Ocean! Mother Mother, and perhaps Maria in the Shower. They might be groups that members entertain themselves with during the evenings. These bands are important to our community. They speak to different parts of the community. The entertainment that I mentioned goes right across the spectrum and is important to support.

We need to support our artists not just in words but financially. We need to take as much pride in our artists as other countries, and we need to back up our words with legislation like Bill C-427.

At its core, Bill C-427 concerns income averaging for artists. It would allow artists to average income for the purpose of federal taxation over a period of two to five years, producing significant tax savings on a flexible scale. Importantly, the bill proposes to exempt from taxation the first $10,000 in income derived from royalties, residuals and other special payments.

My colleague has outlined this in much more detail but I just want to give three reasons why I think the bill needs to be passed.

The first concerns the direct benefit to artists, like those I just mentioned. The bill would create greater overall tax fairness for this specialized group of taxpayers who are significantly disadvantaged under the current federal tax code. This concrete support acknowledges financial difficulties faced by developing and emerging Canadian artists and would put measures in place to counter the lack of access to certain government programs such as EI and CPP.

If we are able to make the private member's bill law, it would really show that the Canadian government is putting its money where its mouth is.

The second reason the bill should be passed is really a symbolic one, that we need to recognize the integral role that artists play in our society and how they boost our cultural identity.

The third reason is economic. We can see the House of Commons starting to focus and really zero in completely on the economy as we face economic difficulties abroad and really struggle in dealing with these in Canada. In that regard, we have heard some figures from the other side of the House that really underestimate the contributions artists make to our Canadian economy.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, the overall economic footprint of Canada's cultural sector is around $85 billion a year. We heard a number quoted a few minutes ago of $40 billion, but the Conference Board of Canada, which is not an extremely left-leaning organization, has estimated it at $85 billion. When we look at the impact on the overall Canadian economy, it is about 7.4% of Canada's GDP. When we look at this in terms of other industries, it really has a fairly massive impact.

We always talk about our trade deficit and how we import more than we export, but what could be more exportable than cultural products. These days people upload things to iTunes and sell them wherever they like. It is a very transportable good, film or music and as we move more toward a knowledge economy, this is something we need to encourage. Our neighbours to the south have done this in tremendous ways and we need to catch up.

Despite the potential contribution as well as actual contribution of the $85 billion, Statistics Canada indicates the average annual income of an independent Canadian artist is only about $37,500. This is significantly less than tradespeople, contractors and virtually every other variety of independent employee in the Canadian economy.

I was a musician until I was about 25 and used to joke about sleeping on couches, or having lots of people living in a house or driving in stinky vans. I guess that is the fledgling part of the industry. It might be fun when people are 25, but it is not fun when they are 45. These types of measures would encourage more people to stay in the arts and make it more of a viable career, which would only be good for Canada.

In the past, the government has portrayed of life of artists as a series of galas or soirees, but for most Canadian artists it is survival on the very edge of the poverty line. The measures being proposed today would go some way to alleviate that.

The measures contained in the bill are affordable as well. The government would forgo less than $25 million in tax revenue per year, but the benefits would be enjoyed by over 55,000 Canadians. Therefore, it really is the best kind of measure, where we are not spending a large pile in comparison to the rest of the budget, but spreading it out over a large number of people and boosting them up a little, which makes a big difference. It seems to be a very effective measure.

These benefits lead me to think about countries that really care about their artistic talent and ways that smaller countries can punch way above their weight. The country I think of often is Ireland, which has a small population but a worldwide reputation for everything from poetry to songs. The Irish have forever had one of the most generous taxation schemes, which has paid off in spades. While this legislation is different than the Irish measures, it is the spirit that is important, recognizing the cultural and economic contributions of artists and how we can support that most effectively.

Numerous jurisdictions at home and abroad use income-averaging measures to recognize the special circumstances of certain groups of taxpayers in cyclical or seasonal industries whose livelihoods do not follow the steady, predictable formula of a salaried job. Income-averaging models specifically targeting artists exist in dozens of European Union economies, including France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and a number of our other key trading partners.

In Canada, as has been mentioned but is worth restating, income-averaging models have been employed at various times to support east coast fishers, investment in resource exploration projects and other high-risk fields of work. It is often associated with physical labour, but it is good to stretch the mind a little to think about how this could benefit those who are not engaged in that kind of work, although lifting band equipment can fall into that category maybe.

In 2004 the Government of Quebec enacted Canada's only permanent income-averaging system, once again leading the way in terms of supporting artists.

This is widely supported right across Canada. Not only do we have an excellent spokesperson presenting the bill this evening, but ACTRA and other organizations are enthusiastically supporting this concept. The House should support the bill and I was happy to speak to it this evening.

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, British Columbians are also concerned about these cuts to EI, especially how they will affect young people. Youth unemployment is about 15% and thousands of young folks have simply given up hope and stopped looking for work.

Today there are 300,000 more Canadians unemployed than before the recession. How can further cuts to EI help young people find jobs?

[The Environment, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the mid 1970s, over 40 oil refineries operated in Canada. Today, there are only 19. Burnaby is home to the last remaining major oil refinery in British Columbia. The Chevron refinery employs 250 people and provides one-third of metro Vancouver's gasoline. This refinery gets its oil from Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline.

Chevron may now close because it is starved of feedstock. Chevron has applied to the National Energy Board to secure a guaranteed supply of oil from Kinder Morgan. I am intervening in the National Energy Board process to try to save the refinery, while demanding it operate at the highest possible environmental standards. The Conservative chair of the natural resources committee quipped to the Globe and Mail that he does not care if the refinery closes as long as it means more oil exports for Alberta.

I am fighting to keep the Burnaby refinery open while making it cleaner. I am fighting to keep 250 good-paying local jobs and gas prices low. What are the Conservatives doing? Where is their national energy strategy?

[Science and Technology, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives are attacking scientific funding and research right across the board. After getting rid of his science adviser, ending the Experimental Lakes Area and cutting Canada's ozone network, this summer the Prime Minister went on to give us the punchline to this sad joke:

—things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.

Could the Minister of State for Science and Technology name one policy decision where he was in fact guided by science and not politics?

[Science and Technology, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative attacks on science and research are never-ending.

The Conservatives have eliminated important scientific institutions like the Experimental Lakes Area and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. They have reduced investments in Statistics Canada and first nations data agencies. They have fired crucial scientists and researchers right across the public sector, and the ones that remain have been muzzled.

How can the Conservatives possibly justify their science and research attacks? Do they not care about Canada's future?