Pat Martin

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for both the tone and the content of his remarks. He has clearly taken this issue very seriously, he has done his research and he raises important and legitimate concerns.

One concern is the balancing act of granting a new range of access privileges, which is important in this day of digital information. However, the fact is that the bill does nothing to guarantee compensation for creators. It fails on the issue of ensuring that artists, creators and producers of content would be compensated fairly.

Given that the area of arts, culture, heritage, music, theatre, et cetera is a growth industry in Canada and one of our new engines of economic growth, what are doing to protect it? Given the context that we deal with the Copyright Act only once every 30 or 40 years, what are we doing to protect the creators and developers of this economic engine of growth that is the arts, culture and heritage?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the intelligent and thoughtful perspective that he brings to a very complex debate. The real gift in the analysis of such a complex bill is to render these complex situations down to the practical reality of enforcement in the modern age of regulatory regimes that seek to make sense of a constantly evolving spectrum of very detailed and complex situations.

I too would like my colleague to dwell on the question that we have for academic material, library material or journalistic material that is generously shared on a non-profit basis for the elevation of the standards of information and knowledge instead of for profit. This is the complexity we are dealing with. It is not just the industrial application of a copyright of profitable material, but the sharing and distribution of knowledge as we move forward as a species. It is the control and the ownership of knowledge--

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for the tone and the content of her remarks. She made some insights in the context of this debate that are sometimes overlooked from a personal point of view. I liked her emphasis on consumer rights. I liked the attention to detail that she brought to the House on those issues as they affect the consumer. Ultimately, that is why we are gathered here today, to look after the best interests of those people who gave us their confidence in the last federal election.

I would like the member to expand on a very important point that she raised. She mentioned that the arts, culture and entertainment are an engine for economic growth that perhaps gets the least attention of any economic sector in our society today. As we lose smokestack industries, where are the new jobs going to come from? The answer is right under our noses. I argue this is being dealt with very clumsily by the government and even by the regulators as it exists today. I look forward to her personal reflections on this new engine for economic growth, the creators of arts, and the entertainment and cultural industries.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the views of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that were laid out for us when Bill C-11 was being debated the last time in the House of Commons.

I understand from his remarks that he disagrees profoundly with the federal government in its treatment of the copyright legislation. He believes that Bill C-11 is riddled with flaws from one end to the other. In fact, there is very little merit in the bill whatsoever. It would require a great deal more analysis and study before we could safely say that it would be ready to be implemented as such a critically important piece of regulatory legislation to govern and guide something as important as copyright in this country.

I would like my colleague, in the few moments he has left, to expand and summarize for Canadians the legitimate reservations he has about this legislation.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians from all across Canada who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial or occupational causes combined.

They point out that Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world and spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry, both domestically and abroad.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities in which they live; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers, November 23rd, 2011]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to introduce a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians, who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, they point that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial or occupational causes combined, yet we remain one of the largest producers and exporters in the world. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities they live in; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and finally, to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

[Committees of the House, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study on the effectiveness of the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, OSME, and the Canadian Innovation Commercialization Program.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's remarks. In the opening of his speech, he gave a graphic illustration of how the Senate was perhaps no longer just a useless institution, but actually acted as a barrier and obstacle to simple democracy.

The only environmental legislation that came out of the 40th Parliament and that wound up in the Senate was summarily dismissed. How many witnesses did the senators hear before they voted down the climate change legislation and how many days did they actually give it serious sober second thought before they destroyed it?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, much of the parliamentary secretary's speech is based on the same misinformation and propaganda that the Conservatives have been circulating across western Canada, taxpayer-funded misinformation and propaganda, while at the same time imposing a gag order on the directors of the Wheat Board so they cannot defend themselves and correct some of this misinformation.

One of those elements is this myth, this free market flight of fancy, that as soon as the government eliminates the Canadian Wheat Board, value-added mills will pop up out of the ground like mushrooms. In actual fact, for the last 10 years milling capacity has increased 50% under the current regime. Four new facilities have begun. The reason there is one hanging in the wings right now is because it is pretty sure it will be able to buy their grain for less, which means less money in the pockets of the prairie producer. The misinformation is reckless and irresponsible.

The $500 million figure that he used is the estimate from KPMG as to what it will cost to wrap up the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the parliamentary secretary verify its studies affirm that it will cost the government $500 million to realize this ideological—