Scott Simms

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on the point that my hon. Conservative colleague talked about, which was circumvention of digital locks for the sake of exceptions, what he is talking about is subclause 41.16(2), circumvention of digital locks for persons with perceptual disabilities. However, the exception stipulates that said circumvention must not “to not unduly impair the technological protection measure”. I read this as nullifying any right to circumvent.

The stakeholders, for example the Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired, said the following about it. It said:

The exception that permits circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) and the means to circumvent these measures for the purpose of producing alternate formats...may be largely nullified by [that section]....

Perhaps my hon. colleague could point that out as well and perhaps talk more about this bill and how the balance just does not work for him.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, by way of illustration I just want to bring this subject up once again.

The problem with this bill is the give and take, the balance that the government is trying to achieve is not there. A good example would be if I had downloaded a digital book on my Kindle. All of a sudden I decide I am going to buy the new version of the iPad, so therefore I have to shift from one to the other.

Now there is a provision in this legislation that allows individuals to do that because it acknowledges the fact that it is their own property and they can shift it. However, because of the digital lock, they are no longer able to do that.

That one pulls against the other to the point where it is not a balance, it is a give and take.

The second point, is the government willing to listen to the witnesses who appeared during the special legislative committee on Bill C-32, the ones who already appeared—

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech, but I also want to discuss the retention of work that he talked about, and some of the measures that are in the bill to help retain the workers.

I appreciate his comments on the capital cost allowance and other smaller measures. There is one measure, however, that is not directly addressed but is of great benefit to areas of higher unemployment, which is the current pilot projects that are in existence for employment insurance.

In one case in particular, by way of illustration, it allows people to rely on the best 14 weeks of work in order to achieve that benefit, whereas before this pilot project, it was the last 14 weeks. Without the pilot project there is a disincentive to go after shorter weeks, as we call them.

I would like him to comment on that. Should these pilot projects be a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the tax credit for caregivers and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an issue we have discussed quite a bit. By talking about the caregiver element of it, we can actually get to the nub of the issue by saying that if someone is providing a healthy amount of caregiving in his or her home, that is less time for the individual in the workplace.

My question surrounds this. There are two types of tax credits here to consider. There is one that is refundable and one that is non-refundable. An individual would get the non-refundable tax credit but that credit is income tested. A person must make above a certain amount of income to get the full realization of that benefit. If it is a refundable tax credit, an individual can receive the full amount. So if someone does not make any money, that person can still receive a cheque or refundable tax credit for the services provided. That goes just as well for volunteer firefighters but it is particularly acute for caregivers.

I am wondering why this is a particular non-refundable tax credit. Should it not be a refundable tax credit for the vulnerable?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech she talked a lot about these places that have created jobs over the past little while.

I read headlines from her riding with regard to 2008-09 and about all the job losses that were at the Newmarket—Aurora plants, concerning Magna. I wonder at what level the economic action plan has actually worked for these people because I am still hearing quite a bit of noise from that area about all the job losses that took place. I wonder if she would like to comment on that.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the workplace and in particular the current workplace in my area. She is familiar with Cape Breton. I am from central and northeastern Newfoundland.

One of the biggest elements of the workforce is the existence of seasonal labour. Earlier today I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about the 45-day work week.

I will provide the minister with an example that I would like her to comment on. In a place like Port Union, which earlier lost its plant for only one season, it is harder for that particular plant to maintain a workforce in the foreseeable future if a 45-day work week does not exist.

Therefore, we must look for ways to promote EI reform in areas of high unemployment. Could the minister comment on that?

I apologize if that is not particularly germane to her speech.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 17th, 2011]

With regard to the Gander Weather Office: (a) what, if any, changes in staffing and mandate or responsibilities have been made within the Gander Weather Office since 2006; and (b) how many employees currently work at the Gander Weather Office and are they responsible for public, marine or aviation forecasting?

[Petitions, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in light of today's question period, this petition is germane to the debate concerning fisheries and oceans.

The petitioners are asking for the dismantling of a large part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. More important, the petitioners are calling for an inquiry into how the department goes about its business on the east, west and north coasts and inland waters.

The petitioners request a public inquiry into all aspects of DFO. They request that the current structure be dismantled and to put in place a model that takes into account fisheries science, with an emphasis on serving the fishermen who make a living from the industry.

In light of that situation, we recently heard that the government is coming forth with a model that does fisheries science management in a three-to five-year period, which the petitioners believe will be detrimental to science information as presented to the fishing industry in this country.

I hope the House will look upon this petition favourably.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, for this entire fishing season on the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a shrimp plant that has not been working in quite some time. We are looking at a couple hundred people affected by this closure over this season and, for a lot of them, the benefits they received from employment insurance have now diminished.

I wonder if the hon. member would help me address how the economic action plan would help those people when I meet them soon.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is a little frustrated, as we all are.

I would have to say that in this particular situation the member is right. In some cases the government will actually take it back twice, only to provide a benefit in the future, so it goes here, it goes there. It is here and there. It is like the Cirque du Soleil of fiscal policy. It goes up and it goes down, and it never stops.

Unfortunately, that is the problem of the salesmanship in all these boutique tax credits out there. The problem is that the most vulnerable are not going to be assisted by it, even though the government says that they will be.

It is a government numbers games, saying x numbers of people will actually benefit from this particular tax cut, but in fact they are not the most vulnerable, as the government claims, and unfortunately this little shell game, as my hon. colleague points out, will continue on other measures. It is like going to the store and seeing what we want in the window, but by the time we get to the cash register, it is an entirely different piece of policy. That is unfortunate.