Olivia Chow

[Airline Safety, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the nine aircraft that are sitting empty and they are burning cash like jet fuel.

Government airline safety inspectors have been cut. Airlines are left to inspect themselves, and the government just takes them at their word. That is a recipe for disaster.

Why is the government more interested in funding empty private executive jets than in keeping our skies safe for Canadians?

[Airline Safety, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are cutting back on public airline safety and security, they are blowing $5 million a year on private jets that mostly sit empty. Government-paid pilots fly them around empty just to keep their licences. This is a new low, or should I say a new high, in wasting taxpayer money.

Instead of burning millions of dollars on jets no one needs, why will the government not invest in inspectors and mechanics to keep Canadian passengers safe?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that a bill cannot be fundamentally amended that way. The Speaker would say that it would not be in order. In the past the NDP has sometimes tried to get a bill through without a vote at second reading and send it to committee without recommendations so that it could be fundamentally amended. I think Canadians want us to work together that way so that some of these amendments could be accepted at committee. However, I do not think that is how the Conservative government wants to work in this term unfortunately.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do know that Canada needs a new copyright act. No one would deny that. It needs a balanced act that would benefit artists and ensure that the people who are using the materials legally are not punished.

I was at one of the consultations in Toronto when the former minister of industry, now the President of the Treasury Board, was there. It was at the Royal York Hotel. However, the Canadian Federation of Students tried to come in to express their point of view and for some reason they were not allowed to do so. It was quite unfortunate because one of the fatal flaws of the bill is that it punishes students.

If some fundamental amendments could be made to this bill that deal with the digital lock issues and compensation for artists, then it could be a balanced bill.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker could give me a copy of that bill. I can read it to them another time.

Everyone agrees that Canada needs copyright reform. Everyone agrees that this reform should be fair to all parties, creators and consumers. Striking this balance is not an easy task. Given this general consensus, I am disappointed that the Conservatives' copyright bill has very little to do with the interests of Canadians and everything to do with appeasing U.S. studios and other large content owners. When will Canadians have copyright legislation that works for us?

The Conservatives ignored expert opinions raised in the committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009. Artists, educators, consumers and students all weighed in during the committee hearings, providing the Conservative Party with balanced information and weighted insight. Unfortunately, this information has been summarily ignored. As a result, the bill in front of us is a misguided piece of legislation and may end up doing more harm than good.

The copyright modernization act essentially gives with one hand while it takes with another. Conservatives continue to not deal with the issue of extending the private copying levy, as the NDP and many experts propose. The private copying levy has worked efficiently in the past for cassette tapes, CDs and DVDs. While this bill contains a few concessions for consumers, they are unfortunately undermined by the government's refusal to compromise on the single most controversial copyright issue in this country, which is digital lock provisions.

Digital locks supersede other rights guaranteed in the charter. They are a blunt instrument that does not distinguish between personal use and copying with intent to sell. In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in a remote, isolated community would have to burn their school notes after 30 days. This is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright law. Just in case our Conservative friends across the way do not know that section, I will remind them again that it is proposed subsection 30.01(5), and I will read it again if they choose to ask me their questions.

If we begin from the premise that a successful act would balance the right of creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content, then we can only conclude that Bill C-11 must undergo revision before this act can serve Canadians.

Here is what the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic said on the digital lock provisions. It stated, in part:

Unfortunately, the bill also succumbs to U.S. pressure and makes fair dealing--including the new exceptions for the many ordinary activities of Canadians--illegal whenever there is a "digital lock" on a work. A digital lock will trump all other rights, forbidding all fair dealing and keeping a work locked up even after its copyright term expires. Overall, these digital lock provisions are some of the most restrictive in the world. To achieve a fair balance between users and copyright owners, the government needs to fix the digital lock provisions before this bill passes into law.

The Writers Guild of Canada said:

The only option that [the bill] offers creators is digital locks, which freezes current revenue streams for creators, and creates an illogical loophole in the copyright Bill by taking away the very rights the Bill grants to consumers in its other sections.

The government has said it is giving rights holders the tools they need in order to develop products, market them and get paid for them, and that this is about protecting creators from piracy, but digital locks are neither forward-looking nor in consumers' or creators' best interests. Digital locks, at the best, will simply freeze current revenue streams for creators.

On the one hand, the bill will deprive some citizens of access to works they have already paid for and have every right to use. It will be illegal to remove a lock, even if done so for a lawful purpose. If someone locks himself or herself out of the house, we do not drag them off to jail for trying to enter his or her locked property; why should digital property be any different?

On the other hand, the rights and interests of creators are not being supported either. It should simply be enough to quote SODRAC, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which states that:

...the bill tabled in the House of Commons will significantly affect creators' revenues.

By that I believe SODRAC talking about at least $30 million.

It continues:

Moreover, the desired balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers and users is, in our opinion, completely absent. Thus, it is imperative that [the bill] be revised before it is ultimately adopted into law.

We believe this copyright modernization act should not make criminals of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal non-commercial use.

We support amendments that actually benefit Canadian content creators, as these artists need the revenue streams. We do need a copyright modernization act, but we need one that is balanced and genuinely concerned with Canadian artists and Canadian consumers. Right now, the bill will leave all sides unhappy. It is one that has fallen short of its responsibility.

As I have a few more minutes, I will once again read the section that my friends are talking about. My colleague read it twice, but maybe after three or four times they may finally get it.

This is proposed subsection 30.01(5) at page 23 of the bill. It is speaking to reproducing lessons. These are students who are using notes.

It states:

It is not an infringement of copyright for a student who has received a lesson by means of communication by telecommunication under paragraph (3)(a) to reproduce the lesson in order to be able to listen to or view it at a more convenient time. However, the student shall destroy the reproduction within 30 days after the day on which the students who are enrolled in the course to which the lesson relates have received their final course evaluations.

I know how students work. Sometimes an assignment can be given for a term. When students have a document in front of them, it is not always possible to deal with all elements of that document within 30 days. Some documents, although they have been received completely legally, take a lot more time to go through.

The bill was introduced on September 29. We are near the end of November. If some members of the Conservative team over there have taken more than a month and a half to read the bill, how could they expect students to take a document that they have a right to study and destroy it within 30 days? That does not make sense.

Certainly, this component makes criminals out of ordinary Canadians. The people who would suffer most would really be the students and the artists who are not getting the fair compensation they should. We all know that these artists help to create an identity for Canada. A lot of artists live in poverty; they need more funds, and this bill does not serve them.

[Infrastructure, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board not supposed to stay quiet when the Auditor General's report comes out?

Even though the Conservatives deny it, too many Canadians are out of work. Today we learned that during the last round of infrastructure funding, the Conservatives were not even tracking how many jobs were being created.

What criteria did the government use to determine which projects to fund? How can we trust it to tackle the infrastructure deficit and put Canadians back to work?

[Petitions, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of petitioners in my riding.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support my Bill C-305 and to enact a Canadian public transit strategy. They desire a fast, reliable, accessible and affordable public transit system across Canada. They want the federal government to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, establish a federal funding mechanism for public transit, and work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long-term and adequate funding for public transit.

[Motor Vehicle Safety Act, November 14th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (side guards).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move the cyclists-pedestrian protection act, which would help prevent senseless deaths caused by being pulled under the back wheels of large trucks. The bill calls for the mandatory installation of side guards on trucks. It is a safety measure used in many other nations.

The bill is too late for Jenna Morrison, a pregnant mom who was tragically killed while riding her bicycle in Toronto last week, but it is not too late for the ones she left behind. It is not too late for Lucas, her five-year-old son.

Other countries have acted. In Britain and Europe, these truck guards are mandatory, and lives have been saved. Cyclist deaths have been reduced. We have tried to pass this bill before in the House, but failed.

In Toronto tonight, the family and friends of Jenna Morrison will grieve for her in a memorial service. The bill would give them reason to hope that this tragic loss would help to protect others. Let us proceed with this bill in Jenna Morrison's memory.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Motor Vehicle Safety, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, every year, Canadian cyclists and pedestrians die needlessly when they are sucked under the back wheels of large trucks. Twenty-five years ago in Europe, truck side guards were made mandatory. As a result, cyclists' deaths in Britain were cut by 61%. Having side guards might have saved the life of Jenna Morrison.

What will it take for the minister to act to protect Canadians and make truck side guards mandatory?

[Infrastructure, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with municipal infrastructure. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, there is massive traffic gridlock, there are drinking water warnings, and thousands of people are on waiting lists for affordable housing.

Traffic gridlock costs Canadians billions of dollars. They spend almost 32 working days a year, that is more than a month, commuting to and from work because the public transit system is inadequate. The daily commute time in the largest urban centres of Montreal and the greater Toronto area is 75 minutes. That is the worst ranking among 23 global cities. That is a bad sign.

Then there is policing, and I would like members to consider this. Municipalities pay more than 60% of total policing costs, including $600 million worth of downloaded federal policing duties, such as border security and international drug trafficking. In terms of municipal budgets, policing makes up more than 20% of local spending. In some communities, policing costs are rising faster than the costs of health care.

Then there is housing infrastructure. Across Canada, 175,000 families are on social housing waiting lists and more than 40,000 Canadians, including young children, are sleeping in emergency shelters every night, including tonight.

There is a problem in terms of municipal infrastructure. The deficit is in the billions of dollars and there is a shortfall. Why? It is because municipal budgets are really not set up to deal with all of these challenges. Eight cents of each dollar of tax goes to municipalities while the rest of it goes to provincial governments and the federal government. As far as municipalities are concerned, lots of money is being taken out of urban cities and small towns but very little is being put back in. The shortfall is severe. What is happening?

Without a share of the income and the sales tax generated by new growth, communities are being forced to raise property taxes and cut core services. Most often infrastructure repairs are put off. The resulting infrastructure deficit is bad for families, businesses and our economy.

There is a unique opportunity in front of us because the building Canada fund of $1.2 billion per year expires in 2014. The affordable housing and homeless program of $380 million per year expires in 2014. The police officer recruitment fund of $80 million per year expires in 2014. The public transit capital trust of $300 million per year that was set up through the Martin-Layton partnership expired in 2009. With about 40% of all of the infrastructure programs due to expire, there is a unique opportunity in front of the House to renew these commitments to municipalities.

There is also one more area that I did not talk about and that is rural, remote and northern communities. These communities account for more than 50% of Canada's exports, including energy, agriculture and natural resources. On average, however, the rural household income is $10,000 less than other parts of the country.

The costs of adapting the roads, bridges and public buildings, because of the Arctic temperature rising, would more than double the north's estimated $400 million infrastructure deficit. Northern communities too are in a desperate situation.

That is why we must look at the infrastructure funds and it is extremely important to have a legislative framework. Canada needs a national vision. We need to ask ourselves, what will our cities look like in five years time or 25 years time? We must look ahead to a vision of our cities because we know that 80% of Canadians are living in cities. We must set a national vision. That is why we must have a legislative framework.

We also need to include cities at the table when the federal government is talking to provincial and territorial governments, not just passing the buck, “Municipalities are not federal responsibilities”. I heard that yesterday and I heard it a few minutes ago from my Conservative colleagues. I may hear it again in a few minutes when my Conservative colleague stands up, “Let us pass the buck. Municipalities are really not a federal responsibility”.

If the Conservatives say they are not a federal responsibility, they should include them in the discussions with the provincial and territorial governments and ensure they have a seat at the table, but that is not what is happening.

That is why we need to have a legislative framework. We need to set clear targets. We need to ensure there is sustainable, predictable and long-term funding.

It has to be green. Canada has a building code. We cannot just say that it is up to the municipalities to decide on the building code or it is up to the cities to decide how they build. Actually, there is a Canada building code and we must ensure that the infrastructure that is being built meets state of the art building standards.

I was just in some northern communities and I saw a house being put up with very thin boards. This was a northern community. Firefighters are saying that if we build it in a way that is very thin, it is dangerous to firefighters. Other people are saying that if we build it in a way that is not energy sustainable, then we are losing all that heat during the winter and we are burning more and wasting money.

That is why we need to be innovative, have the best technologies, and ensure that any infrastructure that is being built would be built in the greenest way.

We need to ensure that it creates a lot of jobs because every billion dollars being spent on infrastructure creates 11,000 jobs. That is much better in my books than giving corporate tax cuts because corporate tax cuts certainly do not create thousands of jobs.

After all of these positive reasons and all the municipalities saying that they need to have a sustainable long-term plan, why would the Conservatives refuse to do so? Part of it is probably because they are out of touch with reality. They do not want to support a legislative framework because they do not want to be accountable.

Right now there is no clear funding formula on how money is allocated. It is a closed door decision. There is no paper trail in some instances. We saw that $50 million gone to Muskoka. There is no accountability and no criteria.

It is, in fact, a lot easier to just dole out money to friends behind closed doors than saying that there is a legislative framework and there is a funding formula.

Where is the grading system? What percentage of the funding goes to state of good repair? We do not know what percentage goes to new projects. That is not clear at all. It is all about short-term funding arrangements and that is not acceptable.

That is why we need to index the gas tax. We need to increase the gas tax transfer by at least one cent so that we can create jobs now.