Ted Hsu

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, to learn to write, one has to read the works of the great writers. To learn to play music, one must listen to the performances of the great musicians.

The next generation of artists is in a really special position with technology that is available. It allows artists to immerse themselves in what has come before them and what people in other parts of the world do.

It concerns me a bit that education has not been clearly defined in the exemptions in the legislation. Would my hon. colleague agree with that and does there need to be a more careful definition of education in the legislation?

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates a multi-million dollar revenue stream for artists by eliminating ephemeral rights. There is no plan for a revenue stream to help artists adjust to that.

I was wondering how the member might propose amending this legislation to take care of that issue.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of something that my brother told me. He is a musician and music teacher. He told me that the training and education of musicians today, because of modern technology and the Internet, is radically different from what it was when he and I were growing up. The reason is that musicians are listening to a vastly greater amount of music and a much more varied collection of music than we did when we were growing up and learning to become musicians.

My question to the hon. member is in regard to the exemption for education. Does she think that the definition of education needs to be made more precise or elaborated on more in the bill than it is at present?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I did listen.

I am not an expert on the expected payouts that will come from the employment insurance program. I do not have anything intelligent to add to the comment from across the floor.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard “Canada pension plan”. I wonder if the hon. member meant to say employment insurance.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have to confess, because I do not want to say anything that is not true in the House, that I do not have an answer to the question. I would be very happy to answer it at another time.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question in this way. Sometimes people ask me why I am a Liberal. The simplest answer I can give is I have been pretty successful in life. Fifty per cent of that is hard work and some of that hard work is other people's hard work. The other 50% is luck. A lot of that 50% of luck is having grown up in Canada.

As a Liberal, I feel it is very appropriate for me, as part of a society that has given so much to me, to work, to give back and to ensure that everybody in this society has equal opportunity. That is how I would answer that question. I am willing to pay taxes to ensure this is the best country in the world.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks by my hon. colleague across the floor would lead me to begin my speech a bit differently because his remarks reminded me why I am here. I am here because I live in the best country in the world, a country that is worth serving, a country in which it is worth perfecting legislation as best we can and a country where it is worth looking at the details of the legislation and answering detailed questions on that legislation. That is what living in the best country in the world means.

I will begin by first acknowledging my family, my wife, Tara, and my daughters, Ella-Valentine and Vera-Claire. I work here in Ottawa but my life is back home in Kingston and the Islands. I want to acknowledge them here today. This is actually the first time I have stood to give a formal speech and I wanted them to know they are the centre of my life, even though my work is here in Ottawa and at my constituency office in Kingston and the Islands.

When I think about my family, this bill reminds me of filing income tax. It is a privilege and honour to stand here and realize that the things we are talking about in the chamber today are the things that will be on everyone's income tax return next year. It is amazing. It makes me think about why the income tax form is the way it is and what we decide in this chamber will determine what our income tax forms will look like next year.

That brings me to one of the main problems with the budget. As my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie mentioned, a lot of the good ideas for tax credits would only be available to people who have extra taxable income left at the end of their tax form in order to claim the non-refundable tax credits.

The government members have not been able to answer the question posed several times, once in question period and on several other occasions by my hon. colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie. It would not cost a lot more to make the tax credits refundable so that they are available to people who do not have the incomes to afford these credits.

I think we will all be looking at the economy over the next year or two. This country is like a ship on the ocean and we see some storms on the horizon. The other side of the House is now in charge of the ship. The captain is on the other side of the House. He has responsibility for taking care of all the people on the ship. His officers are telling him that there is a storm on the horizon and that it is his duty to protect all of the people on the ship. Some of the people are on the deck, the ship is starting to sway and they are holding onto the rails. Others are sitting comfortably in their cabins. The captain should be thinking about the people on the margins. When it comes time to protect Canadians from the perilous economic situation, from the storms that we see on the horizon, in Europe especially, we should be giving preference to the poor and their situation and try to figure out how to protect them first because they will be the first people to feel the brunt of this economic storm.

I do not know if the government realizes this, but I remember that in 2008, when the markets first started collapsing and it was clear to many people that the global economy was in trouble, the government took a bit of time to recognize that danger.

Therefore, it would be a good idea for the government to reconsider that part of the budget, to make these tax credits refundable in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, the ones who are clinging to the rails on the deck of the ship as it is swaying back and forth as the storm brews. The captain has a duty to protect all of the people on the ship.

One example of that which really strikes me, and it does not make sense at all, is the family caregiver tax credit. A lot of us have heard of situations where people have to quit their jobs to take care of loved ones at home who are seriously ill, so their incomes go down. It is very easy to imagine that in this situation they would not have sufficient income to have taxable income left at the end of their tax forms to be able to claim the family caregiver tax credit. It would have been a much better idea to have extended the employment insurance program to provide for longer benefits in the case where someone had to take an extended time off to take care of a seriously ill family member.

The next thing I would like to do is to think about numbers. I would like to talk about the hiring credit for small business and the scheduled increase in employment insurance payroll taxes. If we look at the numbers, for most small businesses, the EI payroll tax increase will swamp the hiring tax credit for small businesses. This does not make sense, especially when we know there is another tax cut coming for larger corporations at the beginning of next year. It strikes me that there is not a very coherent strategy here.

I know what is going to come from the other side. The Conservatives are going to talk about the announcement by Stats Canada of the 61,000 jobs that were created in September. I know about that, so they can save their time. They do not need to mention it in the next question. We have to think about a coherent strategy.

While I am on this, I will just take the opportunity to mention something that is a little different, but it is a concern that has been brought up by constituents in my riding and it is very appropriate to mention it at this time.

In the past, Canada has had quite a good program for funding capital costs of research and development. There is something called the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It has been quite good at funding big projects and little projects and new researchers going to universities, giving them the money to buy the equipment they need to start up their laboratories, to start up a research group and to have the equipment they need to be world-leading researchers. However, it turns out, as a good rule of thumb, that for every dollar that is spent on capital improvements about 10¢ a year is needed to utilize and maintain that equipment.

For example, for a university researcher that would mean funding for graduate students, for post-docs and for technicians to maintain and run the equipment. Big projects have had there problems recognized, but for small scale research and development, the funding streams from the granting councils, such as NSERC, for operational funds, which is needed to really take full advantage of all the capital expenditures, has not kept up with the great funding for infrastructure and capital expenditures. Therefore, I would request that the government consider, perhaps in the committee stage, adjusting the funding so the money set aside for our granting councils, and other councils that can give operating funds, be unrestricted funding to be consistent with the great level of funding that we have for capital expenditures in small scale research and development.

I will end with that. I have not spoken about the whole budget bill, nobody can, but these are some areas that I think are important.

[Ontario Election, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the trifecta was rejecta.

Congratulations to the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and his Liberal team, who won the well-deserved right to form the third consecutive Liberal government.

Dalton McGuinty's Liberals earned the respect of Ontarians by making the decisions that were needed even when those decisions were not popular. The people of Ontario have turned to the Liberal government they trust in these perilous economic times to invest their resources wisely, to plan for Ontario's future in health care, education, energy and the jobs of the 21st century.

The Liberal movement is alive and well in Ontario.

I wish to especially congratulate John Gerretsen, one of the finest public servants in Ontario, and MPP for my home riding, Kingston and the Islands.

Thank you to everyone, from all parties, who worked on this election. You are what makes democracy work.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to dispute one point made by my hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville relating to the per vote subsidy.

Quite often, when I went door to door, I talked to people who were not going to vote for me. They wanted to vote for a candidate who did not have a chance of winning. They did not have a lot of money to spend on things like donating to political parties. However, they felt that if they voted for somebody, even if they did not win, their vote counted for something because $2.00 would go to the political party they really wanted to support.

I do not think it is taxpayers' dollars that are going to political parties. It is the action of a voter. It is making votes count. I think that is important.