Mike Lake

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though nobody on the other side wants to engage in the debate, so I will ask another question.

The member mentioned that he did not talk about taxes in his speech. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay was on the committee during the 39 hours of testimony we heard from witnesses. Repeatedly the member for Timmins—James Bay advocated for a tax on iPods. We can call it a levy or whatever we want, but he advocated for that. I want to know if he agrees with the member for Timmins—James Bay, who will probably be taking the lead on this issue again.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by the member for Windsor West on the matter of the iPod tax. He said that the Copyright Board should have the ability to set the rate. For clarification, as the debate was going on and the NDP consistently advocated for a tax on recording devices, including iPods, that may be extended to other things, in 2008 the Canadian Private Copying Collective which is responsible for this area put forward a proposal. It is published in the Canada Gazette:

—the Copyright Board hereby publishes the statement filed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) on January 31, 2007, with respect to the levies it proposes to collect, effective January 1, 2008, on the sale, in Canada, of blank audio recording media.

In the area marked “Levy”, it states:

Subject to subsection (2), the levy rates shall be...

(e) for digital audio recorders, $5 for each recorder with no more than 1 Gigabyte (GB) of memory, $25 for each recorder with more than 1 GB and no more than 10 GB of memory, $50 for each recorder with more than 10 GB and no more than 30 GB of memory, and $75 for each recorder with more than 30 GB of memory.

That covers most iPods that people are purchasing today.

The member for Windsor West said that the Copyright Board should have the ability to set those levies. During most of the debate on this, those were the numbers on the table in terms of what the Canadian Private Copying Collective had put forward.

I want to know whether the hon. member supports the member for Windsor West in saying that should be the way the iPod tax is handled.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the new member for his speech. As a history lesson, this is the fourth time we have gone through this process as it relates to a copyright bill. Last time around we had 39 hours of testimony at committee during which time the NDP member on the committee repeatedly lobbied for a tax on iPods.

The Copyright Board in 2007 published a statement filed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective for levies it proposed to collect effective January 1, 2008. The proposal stated different rates, but the rate was $75 for each recorder with more than 30 gigs of memory. That is where the $75 iPod tax we often refer to comes from.

In the spring of 2010, the heritage committee, which was dominated by members of the opposition, passed a report that would extend the definition of audio recording medium to devices with internal memory so that the levy on copying music would apply to digital music recorders as well. On April 14 last year we had a vote in the House on that motion. Every member of the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc supported the motion and every member of the Conservative Party opposed it.

I would like some clarity on where the member stands on the $75 tax on iPods proposed by the Copyright Board but supported by the members of the opposition parties.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I just have a comment.

First of all, that is completely incorrect. There is an exception to the digital lock provisions as they relate to people with perceptual disabilities. The hon. member may want to actually read the legislation.

I want to read a quote from a senior Liberal and I would like the hon. member's feedback on it. John Manley said that overall, the “copyright modernization act reflects an appropriate balance among the needs of creators, distributors, consumers and society as a whole, and for that reason, I encourage members of Parliament to move forward with it as expeditiously as possible.”

[Cancer, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today my thoughts are with two friends back in Edmonton, who are inspiring literally thousands of people as they each battle aggressive forms of cancer.

Calvin Kuhn and Kristen Fersovitch are 44 and 28 respectively, both married, with young children. In Kristen's case, her three kids are all under four years of age.

In the face of unexpected and considerable adversity, both Calvin and Kristen are models of faith and courage. Invariably, those who visit them with a mind to cheer them up come away themselves immeasurably more encouraged. It is impossible to spend time with either of them and not leave with a renewed awareness of the purpose and the people in your own life.

Calvin and Kristen are daily living out the words of the apostle Paul, who counselled the Thessalonians to:

Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

May they know that we are inspired by their joy, united with them in prayer and ever thankful for the remarkable model of faith in the most heart-wrenching of circumstances.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am just revisiting the Canada Post pension plan.

Take a look at the companies whose shares are owned by pensioners at Canada Post: for example, Suncor, $154 million; CNRL, $117 million; Talisman, $94 million; and Encana, Sunova, Chevron, Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, all owned by the pensioners of Canada Post.

Curiously, during the election the NDP proposed a platform that would have imposed billions and billions of dollars in taxes on the holdings of these Canada Post pensioners. I am wondering if the hon. member has given any thought to the devastating impact of NDP policies on Canadian pensioners.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about that pension plan and looking at the holdings in the Canada Post pension plan. The pensioners, the union members, actually own shares in these companies through their pension plan: Toronto Dominion Bank, $202 million; Royal Bank of Canada, $185 million; Bank of Nova Scotia, $176 million.

The NDP's stated policy is to massively increase taxes on this pension plan through those holdings. What is the hon. member's position on his party's policy of a 30% increase in taxes against this?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech I made some notes. I listened quite carefully. He talked about attacking pensions and used a phrase, “the pension plan is in danger”. I would make the argument that of course the biggest danger to the Canada Post pension plan is the NDP platform. The NDP platform, we might remember, proposed raising corporate taxes. Under this government, they would be 15% next year, but the NDP proposes 19.5% so that is 4.5 points difference, representing a 30% increase in corporate taxes.

The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies somehow being in opposition to the notion of successful pensions. I pointed out earlier in this debate that the largest equity holdings in the Canada Post pension fund, starting at the top, are listed as: Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources; and I could go on. Out of the top 25 holdings, 15 of them are banks and oil companies.

My question for the member is, how can the member justify a massive 30% tax hike on the pensions of Canadian workers?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little nervous about standing up after that. Thank goodness I did not write down my question.

There has been a lot of reference to emails received from constituents. I received a text from a constituent about 20 minutes ago, and that text said, “Hey, Daddy, are you still in the House of Commons?”.

This constituent is rather close to me, and I know she is watching right now, so I will say, yes, I am. I expect to be here for a long time because it is really important that we pass this piece of legislation.

There has been a lot of talk today from the NDP about threats to pensions. I would argue that the biggest threat to pensions in this country is the NDP platform. The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies, for example, and about other corporations wanting to raise their taxes by some 20% to 25%. That led to me want to do a bit of research.

I wondered who the owners of these corporations are, and I went to the Canada Post pension website. I noticed that the top five holdings by the Canada Post pension are the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources. In fact, 15 of the top 25 holdings in the Canada Post pension are banks and oil companies. That is very interesting. That is $1.5 billion right there.

With the NDP platform promise to raise taxes by 20% to 25% on these pensions, how can the hon. member justify that to the pensioners?

[Foreign Investment, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, foreign investment is the key to the growth of the Canadian economy and our government will continue to encourage it.

The hon. member is new to the industry committee, but he might consult with his colleague who was on the committee in the previous Parliament when we put forward a motion to study the Investment Canada Act. It was consistently delayed by opposition members.