Rick Dykstra

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, equating a strategy that the president and the organization of CBC are implementing in terms of dealing with the changes that are happening within the markets across this country, and trying to qualify that as something that has anything to do with this government, is completely unfair. We certainly understand the important role the CBC and Radio-Canada plays in remote and minority-language communities. Having said that, our government and all Canadians expect the CBC to fulfill its duty to provide quality programming to official-language minority communities under the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the strategy that was implemented and is spoken about by the member opposite was announced in June of this year. This is a continuing and ongoing process that the CBC has undertaken and will continue to work through. I would add that Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, also said:

...a weak advertising market across the industry, lower-than-expected schedule performance in the key 25-54 year-old demographic on CBC Television, lower than expected ad revenues...and the loss of the NHL contract...have combined to create an important revenue shortfall....

The CBC is doing what it is supposed to do: dealing with it.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC already receives significant taxpayer funds and it can operate within its existing budget. While the CBC must adapt to changing technology and demographics in the broadcasting industry, our government believes the CBC can and should do so within its existing budget.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I feel bad this morning for the abuse that you are taking from the members of the opposition on these questions. It is just unacceptable.

We certainly know who is twisting in the wind this morning, but we are certainly not going to comment on rumours and speculation. Our position has always been clear. There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions, accountable for what they say in public settings. Why would the opposition not want to be held accountable?

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is this party that is trying to hide anything. We are actually trying to make it usable by parties when expressions are made by individuals that should be allowed to be seen by the public.

If members did not like my first quote, I have another one from David Lametti, property and IT law professor at McGill University, the aspiring Liberal candidate, who said:

...relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years.

I do not know if members want “yes” for an answer.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely untrue that Mr. Geist was quoted out of context. In fact, I have the quote right here. It states:

...copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech....

...attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use.

That is a quote and it is pretty clear.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know the opposition member well and I understand why he is so adamant about this issue. I certainly would not want his leader's quotes to be used over and over again against him as well.

However, at the end of the day, we believe that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we are prepared to provide it.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, David Lametti, who is a property and IP law professor at McGill and an aspiring Liberal candidate, said of this issue, “...protecting political discourse or speech ought to be a priority in a democracy, even if we don't like or agree with the speaker or the content.”

He went on to say, “And relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years.”

We agree with him, and so should the opposition.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we are not going to comment on rumours and speculation within the Liberal Party.

However, we will certainly make our position clear. It is that there is public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings, and major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and what cannot be broadcast to Canadians.

[Islamic State, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, 100,000 Christians have fled their homes, humanitarian aid workers and journalists are being decapitated, women and girls are being forced to suffer horrific abuse, and anyone who disagrees with these things becomes a target of violence.

What are the root causes of these problems? What are the root causes of this violence and misery?

It is clear that the root causes of these problems are terrorists from ISIL, and I am proud that this House voted to do something about it.

ISIL is a serious threat. ISIL has explicitly threatened Canadians. ISIL has robbed, raped, and murdered thousands of innocent people. Canadians across the country agree that someone should do something about it.

So What are we going to do? We cannot just hope that ISIL goes away. We cannot just hope that someone else will fix the problem.

I commend members of this House who voted to allow our troops to conduct air strikes against ISIL. The world needs Canada to take action, to defend the defenceless victims of ISIL, and to stop these terrorists.