2011-10-21

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Longueuil for sharing his time with me.
I rise to speak to Bill C-11. It is a complex and quite honestly dumbfounding piece of legislation. It attempts to strike a balance between the interests of consumers and stakeholders. 
The need that the bill is meant to address has been lost in the haste of having legislation in place by an arbitrary date. However, it must not only answer immediate concerns but also future concerns of stakeholders. In its haste, the government is missing a golden opportunity to provide support for Canada's creators and in fact is abdicating its responsibility to them.
In this era of ever-evolving, growing and fluid digital integration of communications and entertainment, it is even more important that the bill strike a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers and their ability to access and enjoy artistic content and the undeniable rights of the creators of that content. It is imperative that a sound legal framework be established to protect the rights of creators and other stakeholders. 
The works of artists can inspire, comfort, educate and on occasion help us express that which we are unable to express on our own. In addition, those works fuel the heart of a massive economic engine that drives $85 billion into the Canadian economy and provides 1.1 million jobs, yet those works still are grossly undervalued. The bill underlines that fact by putting business, consumer and user rights ahead of the rights of the creators of those works. 
The nature of copyright is better expressed in the French language, “droits d'auteur”, meaning author's rights, the right of the author, the creator. That right gives artists the ability to determine how their works will be used. Sadly, this is conspicuously absent from this document, or at least is addressed minimally.
As an artist, and an advocate of the bill since its previous incarnation as Bill C-32 through to its present state, I have discussed the issue at length. When meeting with individuals and members of organizations in my constituency office as well as here in Ottawa I hear the same concern expressed. Although they agree that new copyright legislation is needed, they all ask why money is being taken out of the pockets of artists and why their needs are not being addressed.
Indeed we have entered new territory and, as with anything new, there is always adaptation required. For the first time in history the types of physical controls that copyright holders held in the past are gone. Entertainment and academic works are accessed more easily and therefore are less protected. 
What protection mechanisms do artists have? There are a few cursory exemptions from prosecution or civil action for consumers and their advocates. In exchange a rather dizzy and confusing series of vague obligations are offered, one of which includes shredding their class notes. The artists and cultural communities are offered lip service with regard to the principle of equitable compensation for their creative works. They are also offered an inconsistent and frankly scary approach toward the protection of those works as well as compensation for them. 
In its present form, Bill C-11 is an unequivocal failure. It outright fails to satisfy the two most important benchmarks we as parliamentarians use for evaluation. It fails to establish clear, universally understood rules for consumers. It also fails to ensure equitable enforceable compensation rules for those people who dedicate their lives to the creative enterprise. 
Many of my colleagues have remarked on the many practical problems of this law, some of which we in the official opposition are committed to remedy through good faith dialogue at committee stage. I hope my colleagues across the way will work with us on this approach with purpose and in the spirit of openness.
After a long career in the arts, I came to Parliament as a voice for those artists and a voice for the constituents in my riding who are artists. From my perspective, this law's greatest weakness is its complete failure to extend or acknowledge the vital and current compensation framework upon which so many artists, writers, musicians and creators depend for their livelihood.
During the 2008 federal election, the Prime Minister made his feelings with regard to artists clear. We took exception to that, particularly in my home province of Quebec. The bill does little to show any change of heart regarding the Prime Minister's view. The images provoked by his words are misleading and undermine the artistic community, which contributes far more to this country than it receives.
Typically, today's Canadian artists continue to focus on their creative works more than where their next meal will come from. The typical artists in this country have a median income of under $13,000, yet the government sees fit to take $30 million a year out of their pockets. 
That party's characteristic cynicism, for which it grows ever more famous, shows the value the members of the government have for artists.
I look at the discussion regarding digital access as a reminder of the Wild West days when our forefathers came to this country and were given pieces of sticks and told to go out and stake their claims. For some reason, many people feel that the Internet offers that same opportunity. However, like our forefathers who staked their claims, there are people who own the rights to works of art found on this worldwide entity called the Internet.
The Internet is a tool. It is a medium through which we can access all sorts of information. However, if we walk down Sparks Street and the HMV doors are open, that does not give us the right to walk into HMV, put a CD in our pocket and leave. We must provide compensation, which is what the bill fails to do.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, which was very interesting. What struck me was the amount of $30 million that creators can collect from the existing fund. That is a very small amount of money compared to everything that is at stake and compared to the total cultural economic activity.
Could my colleague talk to us more about the fact that what our creators and artists are calling for represents a drop of water in the economic ocean of all the potential spinoffs?
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, the $30 million is money that is collected from users for accessing the works of artists. However, in this digital age, it is virtually impossible to lock down everything.
Many years ago, a method for compensating artists was developed. Money was put into a fund from which artists drew. As the bill stands now, that money would no longer be available. The private copy levy placed on cassettes, CDs and CD-Rs, which is a nominal fee of 27¢ per disc, is where that money came from. With the advent of other forms of digital media, CDs are virtually becoming obsolete and this money has been in decline since approximately 2006.
That is what the bill must provide compensation for. It expropriates that money without providing any form of compensation.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-11, the copyright modernization bill. It is very appropriate that we are debating this bill today. It has a very useful function.
This week I had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with a variety of artists in my office, led by members of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a group that works on these very issues. The livelihood of its members depends on the outcome of these issues. Artists across this country can only receive revenue for and in support of their works in certain areas. Although they have certain tools at their disposal, they do not identify the bill as being a significant addition to their tool chest and in many ways do not see it as a solution. 
Artists liked the idea of the MP3 tax, but the Conservatives did not, so they held it up as a red herring and it was never put in place. That is unfortunate as the MP3 format is now the main means of copying music in this country. If we look at the shifting pattern of copying activity which the CPCC provided in its fact sheet, that is the direction in which the industry and people are going. Unfortunately, the legislation is not working very well. 
I admit that I have never copied anything from the Internet or any music at all. I always buy music in a medium that comes in a plastic container with the artist's picture on the front and a description of his or her work. I find that to be an acceptable way to obtain music. I have not varied much from that. It might be that I am a bit of a Luddite or perhaps I am a polite person as well.
 I believe that musicians provide a relief to society. Those young people in our society who engage in music are often not as troubled as those who are not because they have an outlet for their emotions.
A young artist speaking to me in my office expressed the fact that he did not want digital locks on everything. Rather, he wanted society to recognize and respect him. He wished for an ordered society that would understand the rationale of the music industry just as drivers driving down a highway understand its rationale. As we are in a collective relationship as we head down that road we must work together to make that a part of our societal function. 
Primarily, there is a need for education. However, the government uses draconian punishments that are hard to enforce and difficult for musicians to exercise. They would have to take their fans to court and fine them. As unfortunate as it is that someone would illegally copy a young musician's music, he or she could still be a fan. The thought of musicians taking people to court because they copied and listened to their music would not work in our society. That is not a remedy we want. 
To create a society that respects musicians and their creativity we need to provide some education on that. The thought of detecting recordable sounds and copying them as evidence to be put in front of a court is ridiculous.
We have seen that. We have been in this modern age for quite a while. As a rule is set up, they will take it out.
We should not kid ourselves into thinking that, when we put in copyright legislation which puts the onus on the courts and the legal system to enforce these rules, it will work very well. We need to put more effort into our society, into education and into raising the standards of our society so that people understand that supporting artists is a good thing to do. We have done this in very innovative ways in the past.
Canadian artists make up 25% of radio broadcasting in Canada. That has been a mainstay of the Canadian music scene since I was a child, and that was quite a while ago. That is why musicians probably gather in $50 million a year from SOCAN. The songwriters, the people who create the music, have that opportunity, which is a good thing. It works and it is in place. 
The private copying of collective work was being done as well when most of the recordings were done on CDs. When we suggested that taxing the MP3 would help this situation without going to court and without the musicians having the burden of holding on to the rights or the burden put on the courts, we thought that would have been a more acceptable pathway toward what we are trying to accomplish.
Digital locks will not work for radio broadcasts. Right off the bat, this would be another way these things would be broken down and where songs can be recorded, even though they might be under digital locks in one fashion but not in another. They would be available to the public without the digital lock. Are we really creating anything of value here? Will this solution work? 
I have trouble many times in the House with Conservative legislation. The government's legislation, in so many ways, appears to be kind of useless. It does not work for what we want to accomplish. I would ask Conservative legislators to look at the legislation. Is this really what they want to accomplish? Will this really work? What are their goals in putting this forward to us today? Are they going to protect musicians or are they going to put an unnecessary burden on musicians and on the court system trying to interpret and to intervene in these copying issues?
I stand with musicians in Canada. They play an enormous and good part in our society. I have supported them throughout my life in my role in municipal government. I have always promoted music festivals. I am always promoting the opportunity for people to expand their musical abilities. It is something that the House wants as well.
What is more important is to understand that the law is not what we want to create in Canada. What we want to create in Canada is the atmosphere of trust, confidence and respect among young people, among those who would perhaps take something for free rather than pay for it, because they do not understand that they are damaging people with that act.
We need to put our efforts in other directions. This bill does not suffice. It would not create the kind of Canada that we are after. As such, I would love to see more work done on the bill. I know this issue is important and I trust that parliamentarians will come to grips with it.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the bill seeks to modernize the Copyright Act, something that has been before Parliament for a number of years. One of the things we have been grappling with is the ability to protect the people who create. In my area of the country, some of the most important creators are those who create video games. One thing that truly impacts that sector of the economy are the pirates who try to break the locks and copy the games. They have the ability to put the creators out of business. 
I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that this bill strikes the appropriate balance in helping to protect very vulnerable industries and the creators so they know the valuable works they are creating will be protected and they will actually see the benefit of all of their hard work.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to video game producers. My emphasis is on musicians. 
If the hon. member thinks that is of particular importance, could he explain to me how the bill would protect video game producers? It may well be that this particular part of the bill would help that industry. I would like to understand that better as well, of course. We are here to debate the bill, to understand how we can make the bill better and how these issues can be dealt with in our society.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the hon. member's question, would he comment on the concept of digital locks? Digital locks, being digital, are very easy to break. The minute a lock is put on, someone is working to break it.
Would the member comment on the possibility of finding ways to balance out compensation for everybody, including video game producers, musicians and audiovisual workers, and whether exploring a way of compensating for the potential loss might be a better way of approaching this issue?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, that is part of what comes from the Canadian private copying collective. The tax on CDs worked fine while CDs were the main instrument of copying. In some ways, it was a very non-intrusive effort and a good effort toward ensuring that there was some compensation for artists because we do not have a society that respects the rights of artists to hold their works without being copied. We needed to find some way around that and we did it without going to the courts. We did it through a tax system.
I still think that underlying this is a huge need to raise the level of respect in our society for artists and creative people. That would do more for the issue and society than penalties, fines and imprisonment through the court system.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber. I believe that the members on the other side are all very proud Canadians. I often hear them talk about our country's cultural influence and how dynamic our society is. I wonder what message they are sending to the people responsible for this influence when these members are doing absolutely nothing to protect creators and are instead taking care of those who make money from their work.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I see this as being another issue where we would create confrontation rather than solutions, which is what I see through this Copyright Act.
 The confrontation, on the one hand, would come in the form of people finding technological solutions so they would not be covered under this particular law. That is the problem. We do not want people running around trying to find ways to copy so they do not fit under the law.
 What we want is to have people respect and understand that our society is ordered on certain ways. That takes more time and effort but it is still the direction in which we need to go. Therefore, amending this law without having any idea of how we are moving our society is wrong. It will not work.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11 and I am going to address most of my comments to the issue that we were finishing with my colleague from Western Arctic around the flaws in the bill regarding compensation for the creative people in this country.
It is appropriate that we set the bill in historical context. There is absolutely no question, and it has support from every member in the House, that we need to bring copyright and laws on copyright into the 21st century. We are clearly not there now as a country. In fact, it is fair to say that in the developed world we are near the bottom of the list in terms of modernizing our legislation and our rules regarding copyright.
There is no issue around supporting the bill at second reading. The basic underlying philosophy of the bill, which is what we are supporting, is that we do have to modernize. However, we want to be quite clear, as the official opposition, that there are significant amendments that are required to make the bill palatable to ourselves as a political party, but more importantly, palatable to the Canadian public as a whole and in particular to the creative classes if I can designate them that way.
The other point I would like to make at the outset is that historically there have been various times when societies have made major leaps forward in the creative fields. Probably the most recent one from my perspective in terms of major leaps was the Renaissance period in the 1500 early 1600s. If we study other parts of the world there have been similar types of advances. There is a huge leap forward.
If we look at those periods of time and ask, why did it happen, did somehow magically people become more creative? The reality and the answer is no, that is not what happened. What happened is that society as a whole, both governments of the day and the wealthy members of society, came forward in a more extensive way than we see during other periods of time and supported their artists and creative classes. 
We saw a major leap forward in Italy in particular during the Renaissance, certainly in England during the Shakespearian period in particular. When we ask how did that happen, it was a period of time when the wealthy and the governments or ruling classes of the day were much more prepared to ensure that those people within their society who had those creative juices were given the opportunity to expand their skills, talents and creativity.
When we are looking at a bill like this one, I believe we have to take that into account. Perhaps the greatest concern we have with the bill is that it will not enhance the financial viability of our creative people, but have just the opposite impact. There is a balance at all times between the owners of new technology, new developments in the arts, that has to be clearly balanced off against the actual creators of that new technology or new developments in the arts. It is our position that the bill is way too heavily weighted on the owner of content side than it is on the producers, developers and creative artists on their side.
I want to quote some numbers as to the current situation in Canada. The most recent figures we have, and this comes from the Canada cultural and arts industries, from ACTRA, the union that has great impact in that industry, indicate that the arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion a year. To put that in context of the total economy, it is 7.4% of all revenue generated in Canada. It is a huge part of the market. It supports approximately 1.1 million jobs, which is about 6% of Canada's labour force.
It is quite clear that some of those numbers, and we argue some significant part of those numbers, both in terms of the revenue generated and the jobs created, would be jeopardized by the legislation.
It is quite clear that there are other steps that could be taken, in terms of investment in this industry. I always have a hard time thinking of artists, sculptors, and writers as being part of an industry but, in fact, they see themselves that way. They certainly are, as these numbers show, a significant part of our economy, and they have historically been, in a number of societies.
It is true today when we see some of the advances that we are making, not just on the technology side but in any number of areas. For me it is one of the areas of art that I follow most closely in terms of the arts. Writers in Canada have demonstrated to not only create great writings for the domestic market but to have gone on to the international stage.
I was in Ireland recently. I remember talking to a member of its parliament who commented about how much, and I say this from an Irish background, the Irish of course have been producing for the world great writers for a long period of time, Canada now fits into that. In fact, the parliamentarian was claiming in part that it was because of the genes that came from the Irish ancestry that had settled in Canada. 
However, we have dominated, in many respects, at the international level for a good number of years, going back certainly into the 1960s, when our writers moved on to the international stage, created a market for their writings and enhanced literature in the world as a result of the work they did here in Canada, and then took it internationally.
However, think of all the other writers who did not get that chance because we did not create enough opportunities for them. I am going to quote another figure here from the 2009-10 fiscal period. The median earning of an artist in Canada that year was $12,900. I do not even think that takes them to the minimum wage, the legal minimum wage in most provinces in this country. We have to do better in that regard.
Again, coming back to the bill. Because of this shift in balance favouring the content owners, we are at some risk that the $12,900 figure in subsequent years is going to go down. The estimate is that millions of dollars are going to be taken out of the hands and control of the creative classes and shifted over to the content owners.
If that is in fact the result, we know we have to move significant amendments. We have had pressure internationally from both multinational corporations and some governments to use the U.S. model in this regard. In terms of protecting both our sovereignty of not wanting that kind of interference when we legislate but also in terms of protecting those artists we absolutely must have amendments to the bill in this regard.
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, at the very least we can say that, unlike the third party, this party is actually prepared to read the bill and work with us to get it to committee and hear what even more Canadians have to say. We spent a lot of time in the previous Parliament on this bill and heard from a number of witnesses. I spent a lot of time over the summer doing the exact same thing.
Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of disagreement among members of the NDP over a number of different issues within their party but there always seems to be unanimity on one issue; that is, when there is talk about increasing taxes on Canadians. It seems to me that this speaker and also the speaker before, the member for Western Arctic, continuously talk about bringing back taxes on Canadians, whether it is an iPad tax or any other form of tax.
I wonder if the member could just clarify for me if the overriding dilemma or problem that the members opposite have with this bill is that it does not tax Canadians enough. Is that the problem they are having? Are they truly going to continue to advocate for a tax on iPads? Where will it go? Will we be taxing people who make PVR recordings of their favourite TV shows? I just wonder how far along the tax road we are going to go with this.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, that shows a significant lack of understanding of what we are talking about on this side of the room and, more importantly, because this cannot be driven just by political parties but by the creative classes.
 They are saying very clearly to us that they want to be paid. We are not talking about taxation here. They want to be paid for their services. The content owners are saying they have development costs and they want to be compensated for that, not only fairly but extremely generously.
 All we are saying is the creative groupings, those content owners, go nowhere unless this work is done and it is only going to be done, and done well, if they are properly compensated. We are talking about people being paid for the work they do and being paid at least reasonably well, let me say “fairly”, nowhere near as generously as we hear from the content owners and the demands they have.
 This not about taxation at all. It is about a fee that is being imposed. As a lawyer, I expected my fees were going to be paid for the work that I did. If I am creating a piece of art or a new piece of technology I would expect to be paid accordingly, fairly, in direct compensation for what I have done and for what it has contributed to my society. The whole question has a basic fallacy at its base. This is not about taxation. This is about fair compensation in the marketplace.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of my colleague's legal expertise to try to clarify a few things.
If I invented a new technology, my rights would be protected by patents that would bring in the money I need to continue creating. As an artist, my rights are protected, in principle, by copyright. However, if I am a content owner, there does not seem to be any protection for me. If I am not mistaken, this bill will take money from artists' copyright and transfer it. I would like my colleague to clear that up and to tell me if I am understanding correctly. 
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely right. That is what the government's bill does. It is clear that the government completely ignored the consultations and testimonies from the last Parliament.
As the hon. member said, the evidence and testimonies are there, but the Conservatives completely ignored them.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about the bill before the House. 
Since I have spent more of my life as a teacher in a university than as a politician, I thought I would focus on the implications for the university and college sector. 
In this regard there is both good news and bad news. The bill gives the educator something positive and in another way takes that back. I am referring to the new fair dealing rights and exceptions, where education is now included. This will make it somewhat easier for teachers in the classroom to use certain materials without arduous cost. 
Some of the producers have objected to this, but my impression is that it is a positive thing. Some teachers want to innovate. An example would be teachers who want to show a one-minute clip of a movie to make a point, but currently they cannot do that without paying very high copyright fees.
The impact of this new education right on producers will be less negative than some have claimed. This is because in determining what is considered fair, our courts use a two-step test created by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether a use is fair or not. The first step is to determine whether the use of a work is for one of the fair dealing purposes listed in the act. The second step is to assess the fairness of the use against six factors, including the amount of the work used and the effect of the use on the market for the work. Using this test, our courts have consistently determined that the scenarios envisioned by creators, unmitigated free copying with no payments, is not fair and thus is not permitted.
A clear definition of what is fair should be included in the act. One way to accomplish this would be to embed the Supreme Court's two-step test into the act itself.
That overall is positive, fair, reasonable and balanced. The problem comes with the issue of the digital locks.
 Bill C-11 introduces new rights for Canadians to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, such as format shifting, time shifting and making backup copies, but Bill C-11's new digital lock provisions override these new rights. In other words, under this new law, if a company puts a digital lock on a CD, the person who buys the CD cannot circumvent the lock to put the music on to his or her iPod without breaking the law. This exact issue was a highly controversial change which was fought when the Conservatives' previous copyright bill was introduced.
A long list of leading academics, educators, librarians, archivists, documentary filmmakers and citizens have expressed legitimate concern that digital lock provisions will undermine the balance that copyright law is intended to strike between creators and users, completely undermining a user's ability to use copyrighted works that they have purchased.
Several experts, including Canadian research chair, Professor Michael Geist, have suggested an easy way to fix this would be to amend the bill to make it okay to circumvent a digital lock if the purposes for which a lock was circumvented were lawful. This would be an easy amendment to make to the bill. It would preserve that better balance which I think most of us are seeking.
Because restrictive digital locks can effectively undermine consumer rights articulated in the copyright law and the very balance copyright law seeks, and because the Conservatives have made no attempt to change their stance on digital locks, that is sufficient reason for the Liberals to oppose the bill.
Going back to my example of education, the bill makes it easier for educators to use materials in their classrooms, but then it negates that advantage by bringing in these digital locks which, under certain circumstances, would make it illegal for the professor to produce the clip or other material which he or she wished to use in class. It would be lawful to use that material in the class, but because of the digital locks, it would be unlawful to produce the material which it is legal to use. That makes no sense. That is why we in the Liberal Party are extremely concerned about this issue of digital locks.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I, too, as an educator had great concerns about the copyright legislation. I looked into it and talked to people in the educational community. They are very satisfied with the way the bill is now. In fact, the Association of Universities and Colleges supports this bill. It said:
 This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada.... [The bill] clarifies important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material. 
As my colleague across the way mentioned, the law now says that teachers can use any media to show these types of products. Before it specifically indicated they could be used in overhead projectors and flip charts, but now it takes away references to specific technologies so that modern technology can be used in the classroom. The universities and colleges are very happy with this legislation. They say it is fair treatment protecting both creators and users. It also improves the technological availability to our classroom teachers across Canada. I would hope that the member across the way, as a former teacher, would support that.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the most charitable response is to say that my colleague's quote by the Association of Universities and Colleges is incomplete. It is not completely happy with this bill. 
I happen to have with me a direct quote by James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Here is what he said:
 We are pleased that the Bill reflects the priorities of Canada’s academic and research community to expand fair dealing specifically for educational purposes.... This represents a genuine effort to introduce balance into Canadian copyright law. 
That is the part that my hon. colleague likes. Mr. Turk went on to say:
 At the same time we are disappointed that the legislation makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, even for lawful reasons such as fair dealing. 
That was precisely my point and it is precisely stated by the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech. I, too, am very worried about digital locks and anti-circumvention measures. Last spring, ironically enough, the members across the way were tearing their hair out during the debate about Statistics Canada and prison terms related to the long form census.
In Bill C-11, people who try to bypass a security measure could be fined $1 million or sentenced to up to five years in prison. Given that the omnibus bill will make it even more difficult for someone sentenced to jail time to be rehabilitated, could Bill C-11 have serious consequences?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the point raised by my colleague. It is not a good idea to put people in jail for such reasons. But Bill C-11 is not surprising given that the Conservatives want to put almost everyone in prison.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Modernizing copyright is a legitimate goal, but how we achieve that goal is what must be debated. However, before I focus on any specific aspects of what the Conservatives are proposing, I would like to take a moment to share a little story.
Please allow me to illustrate the injustice suffered by our creators with an example taken from the reality facing wheat producers in the west. Imagine that a company has invented a revolutionary way to duplicate wheat to allow the synthesis of an equally high-quality flour used in a simple, practical, compact machine that makes sliced bread. Thanks to a sophisticated device, the wheat can be duplicated almost exactly, so well in fact that once it is milled into flour, the illusion is complete and the machine can produce tasty, fresh, aromatic bread. But it does not end there. The machine is quickly improved. It becomes more compact, lighter and easier to use. It can now even make buttered toast with a choice of toppings: peanut butter, jam or, my personal favourite, honey. It is easy to carry around so you can have breakfast anywhere; you can have a nice piece of bread in your car, on the bus or at the office. As a bonus, all of these places then smell like fresh bread or buttered toast, to everyone's amazement and delight. 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to proceed to statements by members. The hon. member will have eight minutes to finish his speech after question period.

Statements by Members
SoccerMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am so excited to rise today to celebrate and to congratulate some very extraordinary young female soccer athletes from Winnipeg.
 Two teams, the Bonivital Flames girls under 16 years and the Flames girls under 14 years, both won their Manitoba Soccer Association cup earlier this month. Coincidentally, both had to face their talented rivals, the Football Club Northwest, in their final matches. Victory was sweet and this was the perfect way to end their exceptional season. Both teams went on to the nationals, achieving their goal of placing higher than they did last year. 
As an avid soccer player and a soccer coach myself, I know how hard these girls had to work. I am so proud of their efforts. 
Congratulations to all of our tremendous players, their proud families and, of course, their dedicated coaches, Stan Kern for the girls under 14 and Terry Schultz for the girls under 16.
 Keep up the great work, and go, Flames, go. 
DuncanMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Duncan just took over the least coveted spot in British Columbia, the town with the highest unemployment rate. Unemployment has jumped to 11.6%, while the average in B.C. is only 6.7%. 
There are many reasons why. A downturn in construction and agriculture has left many people looking for work. The high cost of the ferry service means it is less affordable to start new manufacturing anywhere on the Island. We are still waiting to hear if the government will invest in the Island corridor railway to help reduce freight costs. A ruinous forestry policy has kept local mills closed, while raw log exports continue to climb. Most disturbingly of all, youth unemployment is two times higher than the average.
 Duncan has a large population under 25 years of age, many of them from the Cowichan first nation. We need to invest in these youth to ensure they have the skills to fill any available openings. The best way is a skills training program that is locally provided and focuses on the needs of the employers in the area.
Those youth are waiting for the government to take the issue of high unemployment seriously and develop a jobs plan that will help them and all others still looking for work in Duncan find a job. 
Municipal and Regional GovernanceMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last month at UBCM, which was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, two politicians from my riding were recognized for their contributions to municipal and regional governance.
Jim Ogilvie has been serving the city of Kimberley for 43 years. He was the mayor from 1965 to 2002 and 2005 to present. He has served on the Regional District of East Kootenay for countless years in a number of capacities. His knowledge of policy and procedure at the municipal and regional levels is outstanding. 
Sharon Fraser is a councillor for the District of Sparwood and has served her community for 25 years. As mayor, I had the pleasure of working with Sharon for six years. Her no-nonsense approach and colourful language always kept me on my toes.
I would like to especially congratulate these two individuals, as well as all municipal politicians, for their contributions to grassroots politics municipal government.
World Hospice and Palliative Care DayMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, World Hospice and Palliative Care Day was last Saturday, October 8, and I am pleased, as a founding member of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, to call attention to the noble goals of this international day of action.
Non-communicable conditions like cancer, diabetes or cardiovascular diseases account for 60% of death worldwide. That is why this year's theme of “Many diseases, many lives, many voices—Palliative care for non-communicable conditions” draws attention to the all too frequent incidences where palliative care is not available for the medical, emotional and social needs of those suffering through an illness and their families.
This year, advocates for more and better palliative care gathered at events across 70 countries to raise funds and increase public awareness. I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join me in applauding their efforts and to take this opportunity to recommit, as elected representatives and as leaders, to finding ways to ensure that where there is need, palliative care is available. 
Hungarian CanadiansMr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Canadians of Hungarian descent on this 55th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian uprising.
The freedom fight of 1956 was a bold attempt by Hungarians to establish solidarity away from the long arm of Soviet and Communist rule. After this uprising, over 200,000 Hungarians fled their homes into neighbouring countries, and 38,000 were welcomed in Canada with warmth and compassion.
The bloodshed 55 years ago bears powerful witness to the unwavering spirit of freedom that resounds in the hearts of the Hungarian people.
Today I invite all hon. members to join me in commemorating the shining example of idealism, patriotism and sheer courage that is the immortal legacy of the freedom fighters of the Hungarian revolution.
God bless Canada és Isten áldja Magyarországot.
Honoré-MercierMs. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend a colleague from my riding of Honoré-Mercier, the mayor of Rivière-des-Prairies–Pointe-aux-Trembles, Chantal Rouleau. I want to acknowledge her courage in how she carries out her duties. She recently publicly condemned the collusion and corruption she has observed in the construction industry for years. In so doing, she has restored the confidence of people who had become disillusioned by politics, and I congratulate her for that.
I would also like to commend two organizations in my riding that work to improve people's lives and that just held their benefit gala on October 15: Génération Éducation, whose mission is to help elementary school students from disadvantaged neighbourhoods by providing financial and moral support tailored to the specific needs of each student, and the Quebec Latin-American Chamber of Commerce, an agency that showcases the contributions made by immigrant professionals and entrepreneurs.
Finally, I want to congratulate the people of Tunisia on their first free election since 1956.
Democratic ReformMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has committed to moving the House of Commons toward fair representation. We are committed to ensure that any update to the formula for allocating House of Commons seats will be fair to all provinces.
We will increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the growth of faster-growing provinces and we will ensure that the number of seats for the other provinces does not fall.
We expect the support of all members in the House for this important democratic move. That great statesman and Father of Confederation, George Brown, was passionate about securing the principle of representation by population in Canada. Today's members of Parliament should do no less.
A move toward fair representation by population would give more seats to the growing provinces, while protecting the seat counts of all the other provinces. 
We are governing for all Canadians.
South Cariboo Afghanistan ProjectMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to the South Cariboo Afghanistan project. A decade ago, Mr. Jack Witty of 100 Mile House was moved by stories of the rebuilding effort in Afghanistan to ask the question: “What would happen if a rural community like the South Cariboo helped a rural community in Afghanistan to rebuild?”
In partnership with Mr. Esmat Nazaryar, an Afghan Canadian from the village of Jeloucha in northern Afghanistan, the South Cariboo Afghanistan project set out to help rebuild Mr. Nazaryar's community.
Since 2004, with support from Hope International, the Aga Khan Foundation and CIDA, this project has helped to construct a medical clinic, clean water system, roads, a seed and animal bank and a school.
Mr. Nazaryar and his family visited 100 Mile House last month to convey the thanks of the community of Jeloucha to all those in the South Cariboo who supported the rebuilding process. For many in northern Afghanistan, Canada is a place called 100 Mile House.
Forillon Park ExpropriationsMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1970, the Quebec government expropriated the homes of approximately 225 families and the land of 1,500 people in the Gaspé to allow the federal government to create Forillon Park. The people expropriated still feel very bitter about it.
Last February, the members of this House apologized. It was the long-awaited first step towards reconciliation. Forillon Park then gave the expropriated families a pass granting them free access to the park. Other measures have been or will be implemented.
I would like to point out that, yesterday, in the National Assembly of Quebec, a motion to apologize to the people expropriated from Forillon was introduced by the provincial members for Matane and Gaspé, Mr. Bérubé and Mr. Mamelonet. The motion was unanimously adopted by Quebec MNAs. Thus, another step was taken yesterday to ease the pain of those expropriated from Forillon Park.
North KoreaMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the situation in North Korea is appalling. As noted recently by the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in North Korea, there are up to 200,000 political prisoners languishing in North Korean concentration camps, a sharp increase from 10 years ago. Reports of the conditions in these gulags are shocking, including executions, torture, rapes and forced abortions on female prisoners.
Canada remains gravely concerned by the lack of fundamental freedoms in North Korea. Our government has imposed sanctions and a controlled engagement policy on this rogue regime.
I urge the regime in Pyongyang to release its political prisoners and co-operate with the international community.
Community OrganizationsMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to proudly recognize the many community organizations that provide prevention services to the people, particularly the young people, of Terrebonne, Blainville and Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines.
In this world full of inequality, many young people have difficulty finding their place, a problem that can manifest itself in various ways, such as addictions, depression and crime.
There are many prevention organizations in my riding: Uniatox, the youth shelters and the Centre rayons de femmes, just to name a few.
For 32 years and with very limited resources, Uniatox has helped many individuals who were at risk of developing addictions or committing crimes by focusing on the early detection of distress among young people.
If the Canadian government truly wants to make streets and communities safer, it must invest in prevention by providing funding to community organizations like the ones I just mentioned.
Religious FreedomMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Coptic Christian minority has suffered the wrath of Islamic terrorist thugs who are slaughtering innocent women and children. It is the responsibility of the Egyptian government to finally protect all citizens, regardless of religion.
Thanks in part to the good work of the Conservative member for Mississauga—Erindale, this government is working to establish a new office of religious freedom. This is but one of the early steps that this government is taking in the great tradition of our country to stand on the side of those who are persecuted and give voice to the voiceless and defence to the defenceless. 
We will stand in solidarity with the Coptic Christian minority, as they fight for their rights for freedom of religion, for peace and for harmony in Egypt.
Small BusinessesMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past week Canadians celebrated Small Business Week with over 350 events across the country.
Canada is made up of small and medium-sized businesses. They are the vast majority of all companies and employ 6 of every 10 private sector workers. They are innovative and service-oriented. They are the lifeblood of Canadian communities.
I was an entrepreneur and business owner for many years before running for public office. I appreciate the hard work, dedication and optimism that it takes and I understand the challenges. Small businesses give much to Canadian society, and they need government to do its part in return.
Here is what I hear from businesses: “Give us less red tape, not just another study; reduce rather than increase our EI payroll tax burden; and accept our ideas for fixing complex tax and reporting requirements that are rigid and overlapping”.
Today I want to congratulate everyone who owns, runs or works in a small business for their immeasurable contributions to Canadian life. I ask all Canadians to support their local small businesses.
New Democratic Party of CanadaPaul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Sun had it right this morning with its headline “NDP sails in different directions on ship contracts”.
The NDP's placeholder leader was calling for political interference in this process, despite the fact that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore had it right when he said that the selection process was fair, praising the announcement as “a great day for Canada, no question. Yes, sir”.
This again proves that the NDP is disunited and weak when it is faced with such tests in the House. It is contradicting itself on such critical issues, and Canadians are wondering who really speaks for the NDP.
Our government continues to be focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation and economic growth. Meanwhile, the NDP caucus is not able to stay united when times get tough.
NDP spokesmen are taking different positions on different issues and Canadians are wondering if they can be trusted to actually do their job. They know that on this side of the House we will continue to remain focused on jobs and the economy because that is what Canadians have asked for.
Canada World YouthMs. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to Canada World Youth celebrating its 40th anniversary. This is a non-profit organization that offers international educational programs for young people. To mark the occasion, more than 140 Canadian municipalities have declared this week as “Canada World Youth Week”.
Over the years, 34,000 youth have taken part in exchange and international programs in over 67 countries. One of my own constituents, Alexander Economou, is serving in Mali right now.
Canada World Youth continues to change the lives of thousands of young Canadians by helping them become active citizens and compassionate leaders. I encourage all hon. members to learn about its excellent work.
 We wish Canada World Youth many more years of success in promoting youth engagement in Canada and all over the world. 
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP is a confused group. The many contradictory positions taken this week show that the official opposition is not even coherent, let alone united. They are out of their league, and their caucus shows it through their contradictory positions on critical issues. Canadians must be wondering who really speaks for the NDP.
For example, their interim leader is calling for mandatory bilingualism of Supreme Court justices, yet the NDP House leader, one of their top lieutenants and the party's representative on the committee, supported the nominations for the two new Supreme Court justices as part of an all-party process. It is evidence that the NDP caucus is not able to stay united when times get tough.
This week, NDP spokesmen have taken contradictory stands on issues such as the merit-based selection of Supreme Court justices. This is yet another worrying example that the weak and disunited NDP is out of their league and simply not fit to govern.

Oral Questions
LibyaJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for Libya. The future of that country now belongs to all Libyans. The time now has come for Canada to withdraw its military operation and it is time to focus on diplomacy and helping rebuild that country.
All across the Middle East, we are seeing ordinary citizens demand freedom. Canada must be ready to support them in all ways. Can the minister now inform the House what Canada will do to foster democracy and support Libya as well as the Arab Spring?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously the military mission is very quickly coming to an end. The UN-sanctioned mission to protect Libyan civilians from Gadhafi's regime has certainly accomplished its goal. 
We are working now on diplomatic efforts. I visited Tripoli just last week, where we announced up to $10 million to support two things: one, democratic development in Libya, and two, the demilitarization of the country. Those are obviously two important priorities.
Our embassy is now back open and our ambassador is on the ground. We are going to do everything we can to support the new government.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I would like to say how proud we are of the role our troops have played in Libya. We agreed with the United Nations: we had to intervene to stop a dictator from killing his own people.
Throughout the Middle East we are seeing people fighting for freedom. Canada has to be prepared to support them. Is it possible for the minister to be more clear about what our country is going to do to help Libya?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are also very proud of the Canadian Forces who, once again, have contributed to democracy and human rights. They have done very good work under the leadership of General Charles Bouchard. He was the leader of the entire NATO mission. We were very proud of their contribution. 
We will continue to work with the new Libyan government on advancing democracy and demilitarizing the country. These two goals are very important. We have already committed to that through our ambassador. I was in Tripoli last week to offer help to the new government.
JusticeJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, on the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, yesterday at committee a representative from the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel was highly critical of the problem overload that prosecutors have in this country. They have it already.
Instead of putting more police officers in our communities, with Bill C-10 the government's plan is to jam up our courts and prisons. The prosecutors have been very clear, both provincially and federally, that they cannot carry the load anymore.
When is the government going to come clear on what Bill C-10 would cost, and what is the government going to do about relieving the pressure on our prosecutors?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday the crown prosecutor certainly expressed some concern about overload, but the prosecutors were in essence pleading for more resources to ensure that the mandate they carefully carry out to protect Canadian citizens is carried out, as is the intent of Bill C-10. 
Certainly we will dedicate all the resources necessary to ensure that cities and communities are safe, because we will stand up for citizens and we will protect victims.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's justice minister has clearly stated that the Conservatives' crime bill does not pass the test. The Quebec government recommends an approach based on the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, rather than one based on repression. Quebec's approach has proven to be very successful for many years.
Will this government respond to Quebeckers' legitimate demands and amend this bill?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, here is something new: Canadians gave us the mandate to protect people and keep our streets safe. This is really nothing new. It is a clear mandate. Clearly, Quebec has some concerns, particularly with regard to young offenders, but this bill targets violent and repeat young offenders. Why? Because they are a threat to ordinary people.
With regard to young offenders, clearly they may be incarcerated; however, young people age 18 and younger will not be put in adult prisons.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member's math skills are just as good as the Minister of Finance's. I do not know what a clear mandate means, when 61% of the population voted against this government in the May 2 election.
The Minister of Public Safety suggested that Quebec cut its social and educational programs to pay for his crime bill. He refuses to listen to the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous request, which states that some of the bill's provisions go against Quebec's interests. That is serious.
When will this government stop doing whatever it wants and listen to the opinion of a province that knows what it is talking about? 
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: Quebec knows what it is talking about, as does the rest of Canada. Perhaps all Canadians did not support us, but 70% of them definitely did not support the NDP. We are still targeting violent, repeat offenders. We are standing up for victims and ordinary people. We are asking the NDP to do the same.
LibyaMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the entire world saw that, after 42 years of dictatorship, Libyans can now turn the page on a dark period in their history marked by repression and terror. Today, they have the opportunity to lay the foundation for a state where the rule of law will prevail over the whims of a dictator. Libyans will need a great deal of support and guidance to achieve this. What the Minister of Foreign Affairs said is fine, but, yesterday we heard the Prime Minister say that he is ready to abandon Libya.
Where is the plan to support the reconstruction process?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I visited Tripoli last week to give Libya's interim president a direct offer of assistance and support in two very important areas: democratic development and the demilitarization of the country. These two objectives are very important. We announced approximately $10 million in aid for the new Libyan government, which was very pleased with our offer of assistance. 
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while some might celebrate the death of Mr. Gadhafi, the means of his death is deeply troubling. It is equally troubling to those of us who support the rule of law and the legitimate aspirations of the people of Libya for freedom.
I wonder whether the minister is equally concerned about this revenge killing, as it will perpetuate a cycle of violence. To ensure that the efforts of our brave men and women are not wasted, will the Government of Canada immediately offer assistance to the NTC for decommissioning and democratic institution building--
The Speaker: Order, please. 
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, my first thoughts are with the Libyan people, not with their former dictator.
We have offered in Tripoli, directly to the leadership of the new government in Libya, President Jalil and to Acting Prime Minister Jibril, support for democratic development in terms of how they could draft a constitution, how they could build a better justice system, how they could conduct elections. We have offered a substantial amount of support where I think Canada can contribute.
Second, we have offered assistance to demilitarize the country. That is tremendously important. A lot of shoulder-to-air missiles have gone missing, and we are obviously very concerned about the large stockpile of chemical weapons. They pose a danger not just to the people of Libya, but also to the broader international community.
Veterans AffairsMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to veterans, Conservatives were asleep at the switch yesterday. The Conservatives are slashing funding for Veterans Affairs just as a new influx of Afghanistan veterans needs our support in dealing with debilitating injuries, including post-traumatic stress. Our brave vets have earned the support of Canadians, and we are behind our veterans. Liberals have forced the Veterans Affairs committee to get behind our veterans. 
What is it going to take to finally get the Conservatives behind our veterans and stop these cuts?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no government has been as strong in stepping up for our military, and in particular our veterans, as this Conservative government.
After years of neglect by our predecessors in the Liberal government, we have made sure that veterans are getting their due; that includes, of course, enhanced benefits that they will continue to get into the future.
We have enhanced those benefits to make up for the deficiencies of the past, improving access to monthly benefits for seriously injured veterans to up to $1,600 per month for life. We have introduced a monthly $1,000 supplement for most seriously injured or ill veterans. We have done numerous other things for our veterans. We will always be there for our veterans.
The EconomyMr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in August we saw that the number of people receiving employment insurance benefits increased by 6.6%. This number continues to rise, but the government is cutting employment insurance services and turning its back on Canadian families when they need it most. This government needs to stop hiding behind excuses.
When will it stop giving tax cuts to its corporate buddies and help the people who need employment insurance?
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government was given a strong mandate to create jobs and lower taxes, a low tax plan for jobs and growth. This plan is working, with the creation of over 650,000 new jobs since July 2009. We are focused on what matters to Canadians: job growth, expanding the economy, investing in skills training, and helping those who are the hardest hit.
In budget 2011, our hiring tax credit for small businesses provides a one-year EI tax break for over 525,000 small businesses. These initiatives are creating jobs.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, families have known for a long time that under the Conservative government they are just not getting ahead. Yesterday, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing reported the same findings the Conference Board did a month ago. They reported that the gap between the rich and the rest of us is growing and employment insurance claims are rising dramatically. This is the reality for Canadian families, and still the Conservatives refuse to act.
When will the government start fighting for families?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we continue to fight for families, but the NDP fights against everything we want to put forward in legislation that does help families. Canadian families want jobs. The best social program that any government can provide is an environment where the private sector can grow jobs. 
We have all heard time and again that over 650,000 jobs were created, not totally because of our economic action plan but because of all the implementation. I would remind hon. members that the NDP voted against every one of those initiatives.
VeteransMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the truth of the Conservative Party's record on veterans affairs is rather quite dismal when we look at the fact that more and more veterans are now using food banks. In the city of Calgary alone, there is a food bank for veterans only. In 2005, it had 58 members and in 2010 it had over 200. 
More and more veterans are becoming homeless, more and more veterans are frustrated with the system. Instead of streamlining the system to the point where veterans get more of the benefits, the government is cutting the department by $226 million.
If it really wants to do something, it should cut the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, get rid of the political appointees, and deal with the veterans—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, we are not cutting benefits to veterans. We are looking at efficiencies at the department, cutting red tape, and making things much more efficient for our veterans. 
When it comes to homelessness and food banks, our government record is incredibly clear. We are the ones who created the new veterans emergency access fund that helps veterans and their families when there are no other funds available to them. We are the ones who have actually doubled the number of operational stress injury clinics.
No government in Canada's history has done more for veterans than the Stephen Harper government.
The Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. member not to use proper names but ridings or titles.
The hon. member for Pontiac.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is just more government rhetoric. It is sad that veterans are not able to see positive changes in their daily lives.
This government plans to cuts jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada because the Conservatives claim there are fewer veterans in the country today, but that is the exact opposite of what the Veterans Ombudsman is saying. There are currently 700,000 veterans in the country, and that number is growing. Why is this Conservative government turning its back on veterans?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, again, to be clear, we will maintain benefits to our veterans, including the enhanced benefits that our government introduced just two weeks ago. Changes at the Department of Veterans Affairs, as I mentioned, are focused on improving efficiency, cutting red tape, and improving service to veterans. Our government continues to deliver quality care to our veterans and a key component of that is our operations in Charlottetown.
Arts and CultureTyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, culture does not grow only in the big cities. It is created in all corners of the country, including rural Canada. The cultural capital program is a boost to the rural economies and an essential part of preserving rural Canadian culture, yet the government has decided to wipe out the small communities category.
Small Canadian communities have made a large contribution to our country's cultural fabric. Why are they being shut out of this important program?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, no government in history has actually done more for culture than this government. During the economic downturn, we are the only government that not only maintained funding for arts and culture but increased funding for arts and culture.
We understand how important it is, not only to the large cities, to urban areas, but to all of our rural areas. That is why in communities across this country festivals are being supported, the arts are being supported, and we are very proud of our record. 
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to turn their backs on families with these cuts. This week we learned that the Department of Canadian Heritage is making cuts to the cultural capitals of Canada program. It is cutting cultural capitals of less than 50,000 people. Rouyn-Noranda is one of them.
The community of Rouyn-Noranda depends on the program to promote the arts and create jobs. Why is the government abandoning this community?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate for the hon. member. We have actually increased funding for arts and culture in Canada. We are the only G7 country in the midst of an economic downturn to increase funding. We understand how important this sector is to the Canadian economy. It is responsible for thousands of jobs across this country. 
The real question is, why does the NDP always vote against initiatives that would help support our artists? When we talk about increasing funding to the arts community, why does it always vote against it?
Fisheries and OceansMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have left our fishermen feeling like they have been set adrift in a sea of uncertainty, written off by the Conservative government.
The boom has been lowered on the resource conservation council and on the search and rescue marine sub-entre in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, but with another $57 million in planned cuts, we know there is even more to come, worse to come.
Which part of our fisheries, of our culture, will the Conservatives set adrift next?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, strategic review is an opportunity to assess the performance of all departments within government. It also allows us to ensure that we are responding to the priorities of Canadians.
We have a responsibility to spend money prudently and where it will do the most good. We must ensure that government programs are efficient, effective, and achieving the results that Canadians expect from us.
DFO is making steady progress in modernizing and improving our program and policy approaches to meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future.
Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, early this afternoon I will have the pleasure of opening debate on my private member's bill calling for an inquiry into the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. 
The Newfoundland and Labrador fishery rebuilding act proposes that today, 20 years after the shutdown of the commercial groundfish fishery, we begin the process of rebuilding. Unfortunately, the Conservative government appears to be sailing in the opposite direction.
Will the minister do the right thing and agree to an inquiry to restore the once great stocks that were our dowry with Confederation?
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, the government has learned many lessons from the poor practices that had led to the collapse of the groundfish fishery in the 1990s. While some may prefer to live in the past, our government has no intention of conducting a formal review into the collapse of the cod fishery.
In some areas, for example, on the eastern shelf, we have seen some positive indicators that our efforts are starting to pay off, and we will continue with fisheries reform and further implementation of sustainability policies.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to get a grip on reality. Fishers are worried about the cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. People from the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have already suffered enough because of poor management of fish stocks. Now the government is adding to that by cuts in search and rescue. The industry's future and the fishers' safety are being threatened by these cuts.
Will the government commit to maintaining funding at Fisheries and Oceans Canada to guarantee the future of our fishers?
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, I believe that our department and this government have made substantial gains in the fisheries. The programs that we are implementing will make the fishery more efficient, more effective, and better for fishers in the industry. Our programs, and those of search and rescue, are fully subscribed and are working well.
Democratic ReformHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to media reports, the government now agrees that Quebec should retain its proportional representation in the House. This is what we Liberals insisted had to be changed from the previous plan. Why does the government now want Ontario to lose five seats and B.C. to lose two, while Alberta gains one?
Could the minister assure us that he will release his bill soon enough for the House to examine it in detail, and will he release the population data which should be the basis for seat allocation?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as this House well knows, our government has made three distinct commitments. First, we have ensured, or have committed to ensure, that the faster-growing provinces, both now and in the future, will see increased seat representation based on the population. Second, we have committed to ensure that our smaller provinces will be protected from losing any seats. Finally, we have committed to ensure fair and proportional representation in the province of Quebec according to its population.
Those are the commitments we have made and those are the commitments we will honour.
JusticeJoyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that mandatory minimum penalties remove a judge's discretionary power to determine an appropriate sentence based on the crime and the circumstances. Yesterday, the Quebec bar said that it would not allow Parliament to do that to our society. 
Will the government stop wasting billions of dollars on an approach that is bound to fail and that will only lead to more crime, less justice and skyrocketing costs?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public gave us a mandate to protect them against violent young offenders. That is something new. All the measures in this legislation that aims to protect Canadians will respect the rights of young offenders and of Quebeckers, and will also protect Canadian society against dangerous reoffenders. That is what we were asked to do and that is what we will do. We are asking for the support of the opposition.
Canadian Wheat BoardFrank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives thought they could get away with their anti-democratic attack on western Canadian family farms with no fuss. Funny how people react when the government ignores them.
Protests against the Conservative plan to kill the single desk system by farmers today in Saskatchewan will lead to more next week in the face of the government's false claims that farmers support its ideological plan. Farmers do not support killing small farms and small town economies. 
Is the minister now planning to ignore their cries from the farms and streets of the Prairies?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this legislation would deliver on our government's long-standing commitment to bring marketing choice and freedom to western Canadian farmers. Once passed, the bill would allow prairie farmers to seek their own contracts for grains through the open market. The Wheat Board is going to remain a voluntary pooling option for Canadian farmers.
 We hope that the opposition will not drag this out. We know that the chairman of the Wheat Board has said that he wants the opposition to drag it out, which would completely disrupt the markets. That is totally irresponsible. We do not want to see that happen. We hope that the opposition is not going to join with that kind of irresponsibility. 
We are looking out for prairie farmers. Would the opposition join with us in doing that?
The EnvironmentMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency confirmed that the agency will face $13 million in cuts next year. That is 43% of its budget gone. That is one-third of its staff gone. The agency's job is to look into potentially harmful policies and projects before they get the green light.
The government has abandoned environmental protection. How can the agency do its job properly with huge cuts to staff and programs?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is taking concrete action to protect Canada's environment. With regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, budget 2007 provided $11 million in additional funding for the agency to take on more responsibilities related to the review of major resource projects.
 The agency was one of six departments funded to deliver on a new government mandate to improve the regulatory process for major resource projects. The funding was time limited so that the government could assess at the end of the five years whether it was generating the intended results. We look forward to the findings of this committee.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency plays a crucial role. Investments worth $500 million are planned for natural resource projects, yet this government is strangling the agency that oversees those projects. Now the agency's managers are worried about the amount of work that lies ahead. 
Is the government's economic projection false, or does the government prefer to let industry do what it wants without worrying about the environment?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we provided additional funding to this agency in budget 2007. It was a five-year funding process, which we are reviewing right now, and we look forward to the committee's findings.
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, EU nations are worried, and with good reason, about the environmental impact of the oil sands. While the minister prefers to do nothing, the gap between greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2020 and the reality is 75%.
Why is the minister not focusing his efforts on reaching those reduction targets instead of attacking the European Union's fuel quality directive?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, our first interest, of course, is in protecting the Canadian economy, Canadian jobs and the environment at the same time. We are committed to working with all levels of government and industry to ensure that the oil sands are developed in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. It is a strategic resource in our country. Currently, 390,000 jobs are tied to and supported by oil sands development.
 I wish the opposition would join with us in supporting Canadian jobs, supporting the Canadian economy and helping us move ahead in the future.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the government is in denial, but the facts are clear. The government has failed to properly understand and regulate the environmental impacts of oil sands development. It has weakened its climate change targets by 90% since 2007 and its inaction has given Canada a black eye on the world stage.
 When will the government take climate change seriously at home instead of attacking our allies abroad?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are protecting the Canadian economy and the Canadian environment.
One of the things that really concerns me is how the NDP members do not seem to be able to be united on any of these issues. We have heard them contradict each other on the shipbuilding process. We have heard them contradicting each other on the merit of Supreme Court justices. We have heard them contradict each other on marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers. We have heard them contradict each other in terms of the merger with the Liberals.
The opposition does not have credibility on this issue. We will continue to represent Canada. We will continue to build the Canadian economy and we look forward to a bright future.
Air CanadaMr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians remain concerned about air services and Air Canada plays a vital role in the Canadian economy. The Minister of Labour has referred this labour dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. 
Could the Minister of Labour please provide the House with an update on the status of this matter?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government remains supportive of free collective bargaining. We have always said that the best deal the parties will get are the ones they find themselves. That is why I am so pleased to announce today to all Canadians that Air Canada and the Canadian Union of Public Employees have negotiated a resolution to avoid a work stoppage and to maintain full service for passengers of Air Canada. 
We congratulate both parties for their diligent efforts and their efforts at resolving the labour dispute and avoiding this work stoppage. Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to protect the economic recovery of the country, and that is exactly what we are doing.
G8 SummitMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has claimed over and over again that the G8 projects came in on budget. However, now we learn that projects in Huntsville came in at over $5 million more than projected. Huntsville will need to raise its taxes to pay its part of the G8 slush fund.
How can the Conservatives say that the project came in on budget?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to members of the House that of the 23,000 projects that this government funded under Canada's economic action plan, we did not pay one cent of money over budget.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, no matter how much the government insists that all expenses were justified, the fact remains that the President of the Treasury Board refused to provide all documentation to the Auditor General during her investigation. The three amigos—the minister, the mayor and the hotel manager—recommended projects without providing the necessary documentation. 
Will the President of the Treasury Board commit to handing all documentation in his possession over to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Infrastructure Canada and the Government of Canada co-operated fully with the good work of the Auditor General. 
Throughout her 10 years as Auditor General, Sheila Fraser did an outstanding job fighting for the interests of taxpayers. She came forward with a solid report, which made a good number of observations on how this government could do things better, on how this government could be more open and on how this government could be more transparent to Parliament. This government has accepted every one of her recommendations in this regard.
Northern Economic DevelopmentDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to get a clear picture of what is going on at CanNor. 
First, we have an audit that shows that every financial rule in the book was broken. Then, the minister says that it is just a draft and that she is waiting for the final audit before acting. Then, the Prime Minister chimes in saying that all is fixed and there is nothing to worry about. Then, at the start of this week, the head of policy for the agency contradicted the Prime Minister when he told the natural resources committee that it was waiting for the final audit before acting.
Which is it? Has the government fixed the problems or is it still waiting to find out what the problems are?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite should have paid closer attention to the individuals from the north who are supporting our government in establishing a highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. Unfortunately, the member from Northwest Territories voted against our government's great initiative.
In regard to CanNor, we have already started to address the issues and to make improvements. Obviously, we accept all of the recommendations and we will address all of the recommendations. 
Our government takes any indication of poor financial management by officials very seriously, and we are addressing it.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that obfuscation and passing the blame will really solve this issue. Here is another problem. According to the agency's head of policy, all decisions are being made by the minister rather than by non-partisan public servants. These are financial decisions. My constituents tell me that the minister's inbox is overflowing with applications waiting for a decision.
While the minister dithers, economic development for the north is being delayed. When will the minister take up her responsibilities and get things going there?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is responding to the needs of northerners through the many great initiatives of CanNor. We are processing applications as quickly as possible.
It is unfortunate that the member from Northwest Territories did not support the major investments by our government in establishing a highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, which creates jobs for the north and opens up many opportunities for the north.
In terms of the CanNor audit, the audit was publicly released this week. If the member wishes to review that audit, he can go to the website. Our government is addressing all--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kings--Hants.
Human RightsHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have fought and voted against every advancement of gay rights in Canada, from pension benefits to marriage to transgender rights, and yet, yesterday, the Conservatives came out in support of the “It Gets Better” gay youth campaign.
If the Conservatives are now serious about helping gay youth, will they recognize the support that pride festivals provide to struggling young gays? Will the Conservatives restore the funding that they themselves cut for these important pride festivals across Canada?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the answer we gave earlier.
This government has provided extraordinary amounts of funding in the arts and culture sector across this country, and we are very proud to do so. In my own riding and in ridings across this country, festivals are being supported. 
We get a lot of applications for a lot of different things. We support a lot of different cultural festivals in communities across Canada. We look at all of those applications on their merit and we support the ones that Canadians ask us to support and the ones that meet the criteria of the programs that we establish.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is slashing ACOA. Its budget has been cut by almost 40% from 2005 levels, which is stunning, given that the Prime Minister stated in his 2006 campaign, “We're going to maintain the budget for ACOA”. This is at a time when the ACOA minister is hiring defeated Conservative candidates at top-rate salaries.
Would the minister table a list of all ACOA cuts and, along with that list, a list of individuals hired by ACOA since the Conservatives came into power?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave us a clear mandate to keep taxes low and balance our budget by 2014-15. ACOA has identified ways to make its internal services more efficient--for example, by reducing costs associated with travel and internal operations. 
Over the next year, we will continue to cut the fat out of government. We will review all spending. We will review all hiring.
This government has done more for ACOA than the previous government, and we continue to support it.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government clearly lacks vision when it comes to immigration. Parents and grandparents have been waiting for years to join their families in Canada. Instead of examining all options to reunite family members living apart, the government has decided to limit the number of applications. That is unacceptable.
Why is this government insisting on imposing a limit on the number of claimants rather than searching for real solutions for family reunification?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, but it is a little premature at this point. A study is taking place at citizenship and immigration and it will take place over the next number of weeks. We are looking at all options, bringing in a number of witnesses.
In this country, over the last six years in government, we have averaged 254,000 new immigrants coming to this country to be settled. That is 14% higher than the previous administration. I do not think we need to take any advice, or at least any lectures, from the opposition on what it is to become a Canadian.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to families, the government just does not get it. Parents and grandparents are a vital support for families in Canada, not a burden on the system as some Conservatives suggest. Elderly family members provide child care and the family support that new Canadians need to enter the workforce. Since the government has failed to establish a national child care system, help from older relatives is more important than ever.
Why does the minister refuse to recognize the important contributions that immigrant seniors make to our communities?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, there is not an immigration minister on this side of the House who has not stood up and ensured that we are up and working hard for seniors in this country. When we look at the averages over the last number of years, we are accepting new Canadians whether they are young or old. 
What I would appreciate, while we are working through this process at the citizenship and immigration committee and while the minister is making the determination on how we deal with backlogs, that members would participate in a way that is meaningful and is helpful, rather than just sitting on the other side of the House and criticizing.
Canadian Wheat BoardMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week our government delivered on a long-standing promise to farmers by introducing the marketing freedom for grain farmers act. Unfortunately, factions allied with the old Canadian Wheat Board guard are working to destroy the rural economy of the Prairies by opposing our bill. The actions being taken by these people and CWB chair Allen Oberg are disrupting what farmers need most, market certainty.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board explain how our government is improving the entire grain supply chain?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act takes direct action to improve rail access for farmers and to provide market certainty. 
First, the bill would guarantee farmers' rights to producer cars under the Canadian Grain Commission. Second, our government is implementing the rail freight service review. We are appointing a facilitator to improve those commercial relationships. Most important, this legislation would allow farmers the freedom to make their own shipping and marketing decisions.
 Unfortunately, there are organizations in western Canada that have stood in the way of progress for years. It is no surprise they would be taking action and standing once again against the best interests of western Canadian producers.
 However, our government is bringing marketing freedom to western Canadian farmers whether the opposition likes that or not.
Employment InsuranceMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand today to plead the case of a lady who has been waiting two months for her employment insurance. She has been diagnosed with cancer. She is physically and emotionally exhausted, and now she is broke. Yesterday, she spent three hours phoning the Service Canada 800 number, only to get busy signals. When she finally got through, the agent told her that the office workload was unbearable.
I am sure the minister will commit to looking into this specific case. However, does she not see that the 600 jobs she is carving out of the Service Canada EI processing centres is making a bad situation impossible?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the government sympathizes with that mother who is diligently fighting with cancer. Each case is assessed based on the current legislation and the payment of benefits. These will be evaluated for each individual situation.
Our government is currently reviewing the legislation to ensure the needs of Canadians are properly met under the program. We are modernizing, and there will be no Service Canada offices closing and no impact on in-person services offered.
Forestry IndustryMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Goulard Lumber in Sturgeon Falls is losing its Quebec-based customers, who are now buying cheaper lumber from Maine. Why? Because the black liquor subsidy from the U.S. government lets them undercut the price of Canadian producers. 
Like other companies across Canada, Goulard Lumber is not getting a fair deal from a government that worships free trade. When will the government adopt a forestry strategy that puts Canadians first and supports our communities?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that our focus is the Canadian economy and creating jobs and economic growth. That is why we have taken unprecedented investments to support Canada's forestry industry. It has created results. More than 13,000 jobs have been created in the forestry sector. We have a 600% increase, for example, in softwood exports to China alone.
Our government is going to continue to support the forestry sector across Canada. It is an important part of continuing the economic growth that we have in this country.
International TradeMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that our government's top priority remains completing the economic recovery and creating jobs. With one in five Canadian jobs dependent on trade, a trade agreement with the European Union has the potential to benefit Canada enormously. These benefits include a 20% boost in bilateral trade, almost 80,000 new jobs, and an extra $1,000 for the average Canadian family.
Could the parliamentary secretary please give the House an update on the status of our trade negotiations with the European Union?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for his support for our job-creating pro-trade plan.
Yesterday we announced the wrap-up of the ninth round of the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. The benefits from this trade agreement will be substantial. The hon. member mentioned them all: a 20% boost in bilateral trade, 80,000 new jobs, and nearly $1,000 on average per Canadian family.
As we have done throughout negotiations, our government will continue to vigorously defend Canadian interests to ensure that this agreement--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Human RightsMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the urgency of getting the Commonwealth to address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Remember, in 41 of 54 member states, being gay is still illegal. The Prime Minister of Britain and the Australian foreign minister have now spoken out strongly saying this issue must be on the agenda for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
Will the minister now make the same clear commitment and ensure that these basic human rights are a priority at the Commonwealth meetings next week in Perth?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, human rights will be front and centre at the Commonwealth summit next week in Perth, Australia. We will be considering the adoption of the report by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, on which Senator Hugh Segal assisted, with nine other leaders in the Commonwealth. 
The rights of gays and lesbians are tremendously important. It is completely unacceptable that homosexuality continues to be criminalized in a majority of Commonwealth countries. We will certainly take that issue to the summit.
International TradeMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers understand the importance of a free trade agreement with the European Union, but they are not prepared to accept just anything. They cherish the richness of their culture and obviously want to protect agricultural supply management, public services and water resources. The Conservatives are negotiating in a vacuum and are not giving the public any information. They are merely providing assurances, as the parliamentary secretary did earlier, that important progress is being made in key sectors, without providing any details. In short, we fear the devil is in the details.
Does the minister understand that the implications of this agreement are too important to keep Parliament and the public in the dark?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, farmers know, and the House knows our strong commitment to supply management. We promote supply management and we have defended it in our trade agreements. This is no different in our negotiations with the European Union.

Routine Proceedings
Mental Health Commission of CanadaLeona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2010-11 annual report of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the commission for its work.
Interparliamentary DelegationsShelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting its participation at the XXVIIth Regional Assembly and at the Conference of Branch Chairs of the Americas Region, held in Regina, Saskatchewan, from August 22 to 26, 2011.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActDennis Bevington:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-332, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Western Arctic.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill again, although I really do not understand why, after six years, Parliament has not been able to pull together a consensus to do the work that should be done to honour Canadians with the proper appellation attached to each constituency.
My constituency, which lies between Nunavut and Yukon, is called the Western Arctic. The failure of the previous member of Parliament to change the name at the time of division means that my people do not have proper recognition in the House of Commons. This is really unfortunate. I would ask for the unanimous consent of all parties to recognize the people of the Northwest Territories correctly in Parliament.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Investment Canada ActClaude Gravelle:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-333, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (disclosure of undertakings and demands).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-333, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (disclosure of undertakings and demands). It is very much related to two other private members' bills I introduced earlier this month regarding the acquisition of Inco and Falconbridge in Sudbury.
When a foreign company takes over a Canadian company, it often must first make undertakings to Industry Canada to ensure that the acquisition will be a net profit to the country. Currently, these undertakings are confidential under the Investment Canada Act. I believe Canadians have the right to know what commitments a foreign company has made when it takes over a Canadian company, especially when it concerns our natural resources.
The bill would allow any Canadian citizen the right to request that these undertakings be made public. In light of recent events with Xstrata, Vale Inco and U.S. Steel, it is time for Parliament to introduce transparency and accountability to foreign takeover agreements.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Claude Gravelle:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (enhanced ministerial oversight).
Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to reintroduce in the House my private member's bill, Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (enhanced ministerial oversight). I want to thank my colleague from Windsor West for allowing me to work on this file. This important legislation would provide substantive improvements to the Investment Canada Act. This bill is the culmination of consultations with stakeholders, experts, academics and labour organizations. 
This bill among other things would: require the Minister of Industry to consult with representatives of industry and labour, provincial and local authorities, and other interested persons in exercising their powers under the Investment Canada Act; lower the threshold for ministerial review to $100 million; invite submissions from interested parties; require sureties from non-Canadian investors; broaden the minister's consideration when evaluating net benefits; eliminate the prohibition against communications of information related to the investment; and extend the timetable for review from 45 to 90 days. 
In other words, this bill would strengthen the Investment Canada Act to protect workers and their communities, something the Conservative government and previous Liberal governments have refused to do.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I am hopeful there will be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move, seconded by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, “That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, October 25, 2011”.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  No.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place that the debate would be held on Monday, October 24.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I did say I was hopeful for unanimous consent because there were differing views on scheduling. I thought that with Tuesday everybody would be happy. I was hopeful that would be the case.
The Speaker: I ask the House if there is unanimous consent for the minister's motion.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 127.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  With regard to the VIA Rail Guildwood Station: (a) what is the status on the decision to cut services; (b) when will this decision be made; (c) how many passengers frequent Guildwood station daily; (d) how many people are employed at Guildwood Station; (e) what criteria are being examined in the review of efficiencies in the passenger rail network; and (f) what is the government’s reason for considering to cut services at Guildwood Station? 
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), VIA systematically reviews its operations to ensure that it carries out its business in the most efficient way possible. Stations are regularly reviewed to ensure that the station personnel matches the demand at the stations. This will result in an increase in personnel at a specific station or a decrease in personnel. Currently there are no plans to close Guildwood Station.
With regard to (b), there are no plans to close Guildwood Station or reduce the services available at that stop at this time. 
With regard to (c), in 2010, 37,686 passengers either got on or got off at Guildwood Station, or an average of 103 passengers per day.
With regard to (d), currently two full-time employees and one part-time employee work at Guildwood Station.
With regard to (e), when reviewing efficiencies in the passenger rail network, VIA's objective is to eliminate activities that do not add value for customers. VIA constantly reviews its personnel assigned to stations to ensure that the service matches demand. 
With regard to (f), as a crown corporation, VIA is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. In its review of operating expenses, the corporation may decide to change a feature of its operations such as station stops. VIA then brings the proposed change to the minister for approval. No request was made by VIA to close the Guildwood station. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 121 and 122 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway):  With respect to corporate tax revenue: (a) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by the federal government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year; (b) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by each provincial and territorial government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year and by province and territory; (c) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by the federal government, broken down by year; (d) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by each provincial and territorial government, broken down by year; (e) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what was the difference between projected and collected corporate tax revenues for the federal government and for each province and territory, broken down by year, and expressed as both a dollar figure and a percentage of projected revenue; (f) for the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, what adjustments were made to those projections between August 2010 and October 2010; and (g) what new information, new data, or new modeling was received or used that resulted in adjustments to the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia between August 2010 and October 2010 for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway):  With respect to the federal funding for Child Advocacy Centres announced in October 2010: (a) does the funding for this initiative come from an existing fund or is it a new initiative with new funding; (b) what are the criteria by which applications to receive funding under this initiative will be evaluated; (c) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been received, broken down by month received, location of project and name of applicant; (d) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been approved, broken down by date approved, location of project and name of applicant; (e) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been rejected, broken down by date rejected, location of project and name of applicant; (f) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed under this initiative within a single fiscal year; (g) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed to a single applicant or project; (h) what happens to this initiative once the $5.25 million has been fully assigned; (i) what will happen to the funding once the five year commitment comes to an end; (j) what factors or circumstances changed between the time of the requests made by former Victims Ombudsman Steve Sullivan to include funding for Child Advocacy Centres in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 and the time the government announced funding in October 2010; (k) what existing programs or initiatives may have their funding or potential funding reduced or eliminated as a result of the announced funding for Child Advocacy Centres; (l) what specific branch, department or agency is responsible for administering the funding for Child Advocacy Centres; and (m) what is the legislative basis for this funding?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Copyright Modernization Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has eight minutes to finish his speech.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, imagine the wonderful smell of buttered toast, smothered in honey, wafting through our offices. Obviously, that makes us think that the machine I described is a marvel. However, it is relatively expensive to purchase. A few hundred dollars, but we can pay a price per piece or buy a subscription to get toast at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way. That obviously makes this new machine more attractive, since any honest, hard-working individual will jump at the chance to improve his life for a low price. 
That being said, not everyone agrees with this new approach to breakfast and some people refuse to buy the appliance and stick to their traditional methods. However, this innovation becomes quite successful and is sold across the country. This revolutionary device shakes up our morning habits and causes major changes that affect the stakeholders in the traditional bread industry. We have to tell it like it is: our wheat farmers are not compensated for the process to duplicate the real wheat in our fields. Initially, the appliance is not seen as a threat because no one could imagine anything replacing real bread, but the astounding success of the new machine results in lost markets for the wheat farmers. After a high-profile court case, the farmers' legitimate calls for a fair price for their wheat are dismissed. That same wheat remains absolutely necessary in the duplication process created by the innovative company that is now an industrial giant. 
That is not the worst of it. The government takes the side of the company in question and, in a supreme act of bad faith, describes the legitimate royalties the farmers are seeking for their wheat as a consumer tax. Our wheat farmers do not have the means to stand up to this powerful and dishonest propaganda and are forced to continue fighting rearguard actions with limited means, hoping to find allies in the public or among other groups in order to reverse the trend. 
There you have a story to illustrate the major technological changes we are experiencing—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. 
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to speak.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for the interruption. However, there have been further discussions among the parties and now I am much more confident that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, take place on Tuesday, October 25. 
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I will forgive the hon. member for the interruption since that is also a very important issue.
I would now like to continue. As I was saying, this story helps us to understand the major technological changes that the world is experiencing and what our creators stand to lose if Bill C-11 is passed as is.
Creators must not have their works expropriated, as the wheat farmers in my riding have had the fruits of their labour expropriated; this must be avoided at all costs. And we are not even talking about the impact such action would have on the entire creation-related production system, which involves a very large number of people. Today, I would like to set the record straight and put things into perspective.
First, it is important to understand that, contrary to popular belief, artists are not rolling in money. As some other hon. members have mentioned, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is less than $13,000 a year, which is below the poverty line.
According to a 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada, the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007 at all levels of government. That is three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. If an investment yields three times its cost, I do not see what is preventing the government from supporting this industry in every way possible. How can anyone claim that artists are dependent on government handouts when their creativity contributes to the country's economic and cultural prosperity?
I would be remiss if I did not mention the many economic benefits generated by creators. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that the arts and culture industries in Canada contribute $85 billion a year to our economy. I would like to remind the members of this House that this amount represents over 7% of Canada's gross national income. That is over a million jobs in the Canadian economy. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can survive only in an environment where intellectual property is protected.
It is worth taking a moment to talk about what the government calls the iPod tax. Several times now, the government has described extending the private copying exception to include digital audio recorders, which the NDP supports, as an iPod tax. The tax could cost Canadian consumers up to $75 per device, the Conservatives said. Does it not seem a little ridiculous to imagine artists and authors taxing consumers, who are their bread and butter? Quite the opposite, the Conservatives' copyright bill, Bill C-11, will ultimately increase the current levies on cassettes, CDs and DVDs. To use the language that the Conservatives themselves are using, this would be like a tax on those products.
Another important point deserves our attention for a moment. Bill C-11 creates an artificial distinction between copying for private use and reproducing for private use. It does not propose adding any new digital storage media to the existing private copying system, but it protects the system in its current state. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the scope of the levies would be determined by the Canadian Copyright Board, a government agency under the supervision of the industry minister. This kind of control would make authors take a back seat, and it would be somewhat worrisome to see the minister have that kind of arbitrary power. 
The Conservatives ignored the opinion of the experts who appeared in committee and the conclusions of their own consultations on copyright held in 2009. It is absurd. As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. In addition to introducing a new control mechanism wielded by a single minister, this government did not take expert opinions on the matter into account.
In conclusion, I invite my colleagues to remain vigilant. The NDP believes that Canada's copyright laws can strike a balance between the rights of creators to obtain fair compensation for their work and the rights of consumers to have reasonable access to content.
We need to pay attention to creators. Wanting to tax consumers shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality facing authors.
Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, we have a clear understanding on this side of the House, but for the opposition, much of the problems with the bill stems from the fact that they do not see that we are taxing Canadians enough. I think we have a clear picture of that.
However, would the member comment on the unique part of the bill which talks about “notice and notice” for our Internet service providers so we can better protect copyright owners from those who seek to poach their work and does he support that provision in the bill?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking this question.
This really is one of the regrettable aspects of this debate and others as well. Unfortunately, we argue too easily over details. All the New Democratic Party is asking for, in this debate as well as others, is to be able to discuss these questions openly and thoroughly.
Unfortunately, despite this government's openness to receiving proposals, all of ours were categorically rejected. I hope that the hon. member will listen to me and that we can speak openly.
Robert Aubin: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the striking way he is approaching this issue. 
I would like to carry on with his analogy. In terms of his machine, it seems to me that it is a question of modernization, as opposed to creation. Usually, when a machine is created, engineers are called in to help, but when it comes time to modify it, I would think it important to consult with those who actually use the machine.
In the case of Bill C-11, are there associations of creators in Quebec or Canada that seem to support the government?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for praising my creative talents. I truly enjoyed using them.
So far there has been no representation from the creators in support of this bill. It is a shame that in this situation, and in others, it is the major conglomerates, the major power holders that have the upper hand. It is the property holders—Sony, Apple and other corporations—that have ample means to defend themselves. Obviously we have to provide a regulatory framework to protect their interests, but creators are also calling for this same right. We wonder why the government is denying them that right.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, could the member elaborate on the economic contributions he sees from the indirect jobs? I know many of our communities have those indirect jobs in the arts and culture industry.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.
Yesterday, I had the honour of receiving farmers from across the country. They told me all about the spinoffs of farming activities. The same thing applies to the arts. It is quite extraordinary to see the economic contribution made by creators through the many partnerships they bring to the table and the massive multiplier effect that results. I am talking about two, three and four times the level of government investment. Sometimes it is almost 10 times the investment when we talk about general economic activity.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate. What we are dealing with in the House at this moment is an amendment to Bill C-11 suggesting that what we should be doing is essentially striking the bill. The amendment says that the House would decline to give a second reading. I believe part of the reason for the amendment is that this piece of legislation fails to deal with the concerns raised in connection with previous versions of the bill; this is not the first time that the House has seen some attempt to amend the Copyright Act.
With regard to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, I know listeners are interested in why we are talking about complex issues. The legislative summary discusses copyright law in Canada. It says:
 Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Copyright attaches to an original work that is fixed in some material form. In other words, copyright protects the expression of an idea or intellectual creation; it does not protect the idea itself. 
It also says:
 The Act affords the author of a work the right to authorize or prohibit certain uses of his or her work and to receive compensation for its use. The purpose of the Act, like that of other pieces of intellectual property legislation, is to protect copyright owners while promoting creativity and the orderly exchange of ideas. 
New Democrats, the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, have very ably raised the point that we absolutely need an amendment to the copyright laws we currently have in Canada. Everyone agrees that we need an amendment, but as other members have pointed out, the devil is in the details.
New Democrats have consistently proposed that copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of the creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content. We have proposed amendments to the bill that would create a fair royalty system for artists, because as it stands right now, the proposed legislation will actually wipe away millions of dollars in revenue for artists. This has a profound effect not only on the artists' ability to continue to create and contribute, but also on our communities and our economic well-being. I will touch on that in a minute.
The proposed Copyright Modernization Act essentially gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. While the 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, digital lock provisions.
In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in remote, isolated communities would have to burn their school notes after 30 days; this is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright laws. I was formerly the aboriginal affairs critic, and we understand that the only way for many aboriginal communities to have access to a more balanced education system is through the Internet. Students simply need a reasonable parity of time to access material that is so essential toward their becoming important and productive members of the future labour force.
New Democrats have proposed removing the sections of the copyright modernization bill that would make criminals out of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal noncommercial use. We support the lessening of penalties for those who are responsible for breaking copyright laws; this would prevent the excessive use of lawsuits against ordinary citizens, which has been problematic in the United States. There were extensive copyright consultations in 2009, and the bill that has been reintroduced from the former bill simply has disregarded that extensive consultation.
I want to turn for a moment to the economics around copyright. This is the reason it is so essential for us get this piece of legislation right. Many of our communities have a vibrant community of writers, singer-songwriters, theatrical producers, cinematographers, and producers of Internet media, and many communities derive a substantial benefit from these creative activities. 
A couple of years ago, the Conference Board of Canada did an extensive report on the contribution that arts and culture make to our communities. I want to quote from the report, because it illustrates why it is important that we get it right and why New Democrats have been so very adamant that what the Conservatives have proposed simply does not fix some of the problems before us.
Chapter 1 is entitled “Valuing Arts and Culture as Cornerstones of the Creative Economy”. 
The chapter summary says in part:
 In a dynamic environment of global competition, demographic change, and migration, Canada’s culture sector plays a critical role in attracting people, businesses, and investment; stimulating creativity and innovation; and distinguishing Canada as an exciting place where people can celebrate their heritage and achieve personal and professional fulfillment. 
 The first chapter of the report goes on to discuss: 
 ...the value to Canada of the culture sector as an economic engine, a magnet for talent, and a catalyst for prosperity. 
We often hear in this House about how important it is for what we do here to contribute toward overall economic growth. What the Conference Board of Canada is laying out is a framework describing how the culture sector, beyond just the very fact of culture, is part of what is creating that innovation and that prosperity. 
The report goes on to state: 
 Traditionally, the culture sector has been recognized for its multi-faceted role in contributing to individual and community development, social cohesion, and quality of life; however, in recent decades there has been growing understanding and examination of the substantial economic contributions of arts and culture industries and of their central role in the creative economy. 
The report goes on on to talk about what the creative economy is, and since I only have 10 minutes, I cannot get into the details of that. However, I know, for example, from talking with some of major software developers that it has been very important for the software development industry to be able to tap into that creative community to enhance their product. That is another sideline that the creative community often plays.
Now we can talk about dollars and cents. This is an overview of the economic contribution. I am only going to read a small part of it. It says:
 The economic footprint of the culture sector is much larger, when accounting for combined direct, indirect, and induced effects. The Conference Board calculates this full contribution as valued at $84.6 billion, about 7.4 per cent of total real GDP, in 2007. 
 It goes on to say:
 Considering the effect of culture industries on other sectors of the economy, including direct, indirect, and induced effects combined, culture and related industries employed over 1.1 million people in 2007. 
However, there is a discrepancy in this, and the Conference Board of Canada goes on to point this out. Many people feel that sometimes people in these creative industries make big bucks. Contrary to that, it specifically cites artists. The report states:
 In the case of artists, for example, despite the fact that 41 per cent of artists have a university degree, a certificate, or a diploma--almost double the rate of 22 per cent for the overall labour force--average earnings remain relatively low at $23,500 per year. 
It is important to raise that point because of the complexity of the copyright legislation. One of the goals of copyright is to ensure that artists are adequately compensated for the work they do. If we fail to do that, we already have some components of the culture sector who are seriously underpaid for what they do, so we want to ensure they are compensated.
Many of us could get up in this House and talk about the importance of culture at the local level in our ridings. My riding is a great example. A number of years ago, the town of Chemainus was struggling because its major employer, the sawmill, shut down. The town of Chemainus reinvented itself and became known as the town of murals. Chemainus is now a vibrant artistic community that not only has these magnificent murals on the walls but has also generated a whole series of other activities. In addition, the town of Chemainus has a very good theatre company, and people come from all over the island to attend its productions. 
In the town of Duncan, every July we have a folk festival that brings in singers and songwriters. This provides a venue for, particularly, new and emerging Canadian artists to perform and engage in other creative activities with other artists from across the country, and sometimes from afar as well.
The city of Nanaimo has a very vibrant theatre culture, and of course Gabriola is awash with world-renowned songwriters and performers. Bob Bossin is only one of many. A recent arts tour on Thanksgiving weekend highlighted the diversity of the arts culture on Gabriola.
I will conclude by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation that we need to get right in order to protect not only consumers but also producers of arts and culture in our country. I would strongly urge all members to take this bill back to some basics and get it right.
Tyrone Benskin: Madam Speaker, my colleague's very eloquent exploration of the bill is greatly appreciated.
This country has enjoyed a massive burst of popularity due to the work that groups like Arcade Fire are expressing. Their ability to do their job is predicated on the fact that they do not have to literally go to McDonald's and flip burgers to make ends meet.
Could my hon. colleague comment on what losing this kind of income would mean to the creative capacity of our artists?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, that question is fundamental to part of what we should be talking about. 
We often hear in this current economic climate about how important it is that we support job creation and that we support good-paying jobs. I would argue that as the arts and culture community is fundamental to so many of our communities, it is very important that we protect artists' rights to make a decent living.
That romantic notion of starving artists living in garrets to produce their great works does not retain much romance when they have to pay their bills at the end of the day. What we want is a thriving arts and culture community that can pay its bills.
Another colleague talked about the multiplier effect. The arts and culture sector is an enormous contributor to many of our communities. People see the finished product and think that is all we are dealing with. However, they are not talking about all the suppliers for the painters. They are not talking about the people who provide the framing of those goods. 
I could go on about the economic contribution that arts and culture makes, but in the context of this particular bill, we need to ensure that we do the job of protecting both the consumer and the producer.
Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, it was interesting that one point the member made was that at the very least we are able to have this debate and that the opposition, the official opposition in this case, is prepared to go to committee to hear from more witnesses. We spent a lot of time in the last Parliament on this matter. We have spent a lot of time in a number of Parliaments on it. All of us have probably reviewed some of the testimony we heard at committee, and it is gratifying to know that one part of the opposition is prepared to hear more testimony and hear from more Canadians.
I wonder if she might comment on some of the provisions in the bill that deal specifically with PVRs and time shifting, which would allow Canadians to no longer live in fear of how they watch their TV. I wonder if she would also comment on the notice and notice provisions that we have put in the bill with respect to Internet service providers.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I think what the parliamentary secretary has raised in his questions is the very complexity of this particular piece of legislation. He is quite correct. In previous Parliaments, we did have committee hearings dealing with various aspects of this bill, and I was just looking for the direct quote on the legislative summary.
However, what we found in previous committee hearings was, in effect, that there was no consensus about how to deal with some of these issues. The reason New Democrats are supporting having this go back to committee is to deal with some of those very complex issues that are not currently reflected in the bill, in the hope that we can amend the bill to better reflect what we believe Canadians are telling us.
I look forward to future discussions on this particular piece of legislation, because it is very important that we engage in copyright reform in our country.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have once again introduced a bill to modernize the Copyright Act.
Bill C-11 is identical to the previous copyright legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. Copyright modernization has been needed for a long time, especially with the advent of new technologies. The new legislative amendments would adapt Canadian rules to take into account new technologies and would also harmonize them with current international standards. This is a very complex issue because it involves the demands of stakeholders in artistic communities, universities, the technology sector, business and consumer protection groups.
This bill will create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners, preventing access to copyrighted works. This will result in a situation where digital locks will practically trump all other rights, including fair dealing for students and journalists.
This gives rise to a number of problems that I would like to highlight. First, there is the danger of creating situations where consumers will not be allowed to use content for which they have already paid. Although the bill contains some concessions for consumers, they are undermined by the government's refusal to reach a compromise on the most contentious copyright issue in Canada: the provisions regarding digital locks. Many stakeholders from the areas concerned believe that digital locks are completely obsolete and that only a few industries, such as the video game and computer software industries, still use such protection.
Although the Conservative government continues to say that the proposed changes to the Copyright Act will protect the best interests of Canadian consumers, the reality is that the Conservatives have based their policy on the concerns of large copyright holders, especially those in the United States. The real winners with Bill C-11 are the major movie studios and record labels, and not Canadian consumers.
Recent information published by WikiLeaks also demonstrates that the main copyright owners in the United States conspired with the Conservatives regarding Canada's Copyright Act. One of the most worrying WikiLeaks revelations is that a key staff member under the industry minister at the time encouraged the United States to put Canada on their piracy watch list in order to pressure Parliament to pass new legislation that would weaken the rights of Canadian consumers.
I would also like to point out that digital locks supersede all other rights set out in the act. That includes changing the format for someone who is visually impaired, for example. The goal is to allow recording companies and movie studios to protect their declining capacity to generate profit.
These new provisions would require that, if a digital lock has been used, copies made for education purposes must automatically be erased in five days and class notes be destroyed within 30 days of the course ending. That will have serious consequences for students who take distance-education courses. When it comes to distance education, for example, the provisions in the new bill mean that people living in a remote community will have to burn their class notes 30 days after downloading them. That is not an improvement on the current situation and it is not an appropriate use of the copyright regulations. 
I should point out that the Conservatives talk about fair dealing for purposes of education, but this is not defined in the legislation. Anyone can make a claim for this kind of use. For example, in Quebec, an agreement signed in 1982 between the educational sector and the collectives such as Copibec allows for certain products from authors and artists to be copied, in exchange for compensation. However, the Conservatives' Bill C-11 would encroach upon this agreement. This would lead to an estimated loss of $10 million. There is a lot of uncertainty about what teachers can do with these works. I should point out that a society that wants to expand its knowledge must regularly quote authors who are well educated and who are behind the creation of new knowledge that allows our society to advance and develop. 
The compromise provisions in Bill C-11 would officially include current grey area practices, for example, practices that allow users to record television shows to watch later, provided that they do not create a library of recorded content, as well as practices that allow a user to transfer musical works from a CD to an MP3 player and make backups. The bill will also create new exceptions to the Copyright Act for fair dealing, including exceptions for teachers and for parody and satire. The exceptions in Bill C-11 are among the most controversial elements of the new bill. The long and complex list of exceptions does not adequately recognize the rights of creators. In fact, these exceptions create new means for consumers to access protected content without also creating new ways to compensate creators for the use of their work.
With this bill, the Conservatives have intentionally avoided addressing the question of a possible extension of the private copying exception. An exception for private copying has been very effective in the past concerning cassettes, DVDs and CDs. The NDP agrees that the Copyright Act needs to be modernized, but we feel that this bill has too many glaring problems. In some cases, it even creates new problems where there were none before.
The NDP wants to and is willing to amend the bill so that it betters reflects the interests of Canadian authors and consumers. We in the NDP strongly believe that changes to copyright in Canada can strike a balance between creators' rights to be fairly compensated for their work and consumers' rights to have reasonable access to content. For the benefit of the various stakeholders, we need to create a fair system of royalties for artists. This bill grants several new privileges concerning access to content, but it does not provide any new ways to pay artists. In its current state, this bill deprives artists of several million dollars in revenue. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that Canada's arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion per year to our economy, which represents 7.4% of Canada's GNI, and support some 1.1 million jobs, or about 6% of the Canadian labour force. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can only survive in an environment where intellectual property is protected.
Despite the important contribution made by these industries, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year. The money the artist invests in production must also be subtracted from this amount. As a result, artists make an average annual income of approximately $8,000.
It appears that all efforts to reform the Copyright Act in Canada in recent years have had very little to do with creating a system that balances the rights of creators and those of the public. Rather, these efforts seem to be attempts to meet the demands of large content owners in the United States, such as movie studios, recording companies and video game developers. 
We are therefore proposing to delete from the copyright modernization bill the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. We support shorter sentences for those found guilty of violating the Copyright Act because this would prevent excessive recourse to litigation against individuals, a situation that is problematic in the United States.
 Furthermore, the legal uncertainty surrounding the terms “fair dealing for the purpose of education” and “reasonable grounds” will lead creators to take legal action against users. A court decision can take years and such procedures will be extremely costly for both creators and users, and will result in costs that are higher than the penalties set out in the bill. The Conservatives have ignored the opinions of the experts heard in committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009. 
As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. This bill will violate creators' rights and compromise our ability to compete in the digital realm of the world economy. Losses for all Canadian creators are estimated at $126 million.
That is why, although the NDP firmly believes that it is high time to update the Copyright Act, we cannot support this bill, which has too many obvious problems. Contrary to the Conservatives, we in the NDP will work hard to amend the bill—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He could perhaps finish his comments during the period for questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but the opposition has again pointed out that the best way to solve a lot of the copyright issues is to tax Canadians more. This is not something that we on this side of the House are contemplating.
Could my colleague discuss a bit the provisions of the bill which make it an infringement to induce or to enable others to steal the work of artists, such as movies, sound recordings and video games? Does the hon. member agree with those provisions in the bill that would protect those artists? Is that one of the sections that not only he but the rest of the members in his caucus will support?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, compensation for artists' work cannot be considered a tax. In the past, there were levies placed on every blank CD and cassette tape sold. This allowed people to record music. It is important for authors to receive royalties for their products. With the new iPods, everything is downloaded for free. People think that they have the right to do so, when that is obviously not the case. It is important for artists to be compensated for their work.
When an iPod is produced, everyone is paid: the iPod manufacturer, the box manufacturer and the packaging manufacturer. Everyone is compensated. This product is designed to hold music. But the artist who created the music is not compensated. It is completely absurd to encourage such a situation. Yes, we must prevent people from downloading for free, but we must also compensate the artists who produce these works.
Tyrone Benskin: Madam Speaker, we hear the word tax being thrown around a lot in this conversation.
 I come from an area which benefits from the use fees that are attributed to intellectual property. What is being looked for is use fees. If someone uses a product, then that individual should pay for that product.
My colleague brought up the fact that the people who created the iPod are paid. Patent holders, which is a type of copyright, hold a number of patents on various aspects of the iPod and other MP3 players and they are paid with each unit they have sold. 
Why is it so hard to understand that the creators of the content that goes on to these patented objects should want to be paid as well? Why is it referred to as a tax because of that? Could my colleague elaborate on that?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: I thank my colleague for his question. A fee for use cannot be considered a tax. Creators produce music, which is available on the Internet. People think that they can download it for free and put it on their MP3 players. Everyone was paid for the MP3 player, the product that plays the music—even the manufacturer of the paper and packaging. Everyone was paid, but the artist who created the work that users put on their iPods is not. That is completely absurd and we cannot allow that. Artists must be compensated for their work. We cannot consider that to be a tax. My colleague is absolutely right: it is not a tax; it is a fee for use.
Massimo Pacetti: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. 
I have the honour of rising today in the House to debate Bill C-11. As we all know, the purpose of this bill is to update the Copyright Act, which has not been changed in a number of years, in order to take the new digital technologies into account. We commend the fact that the government has finally decided to address this matter and we support the efforts to update the Copyright Act if they are geared toward justice and fairness.
The government could have taken this opportunity to resolve copyright-related problems, but instead it has once again demonstrated its narrow ideology by introducing a bill that satisfies American interests more than Canadian interests.
Last year, during the study of former Bill C-32, more than 200 submissions and proposals were made in committee, and each party offered criticism to improve this bill. These submissions and proposals gave us a better idea of the needs of our authors, creators and consumers. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have once again ignored Canadians. They are so arrogant as to brag about not having made any changes, since they prefer to get their orders from Washington.
I could ask why the Conservatives are ignoring these many in-depth consultations that were held in Parliament, but we already know the answer: for the Conservatives there is no room for reason, facts and evidence. This government insists on introducing these bills despite the many voices that speak out against them every time. This bill has a significant number of deficiencies that fail to serve either users or the authors.
Let us begin with the new rights and new exceptions with regard to fair dealing, especially for the purpose of education. A number of writers and publishers are strongly opposed to these exemptions, as they fear their works will be reproduced and distributed freely to students, which will result in lost income for them and constitutes, to some extent, an expropriation of their rights.
This is particularly problematic in Quebec and various francophone communities in Canada, given that, because of demographics, there is only a small pool of potential buyers.
Of course, a number of academic institutions support education exemptions because it will mean considerable savings and they will be able to use audiovisual products more often to facilitate student learning.
Creators live off their works and should be compensated when these works are used. A balanced bill would take the needs of creators and educational institutions into account, but this bill is not balanced and in no way compensates for the losses that certain authors will face. We are also asking the government to help artists adjust to the new digital reality and for transitional funding to help artists compensate for lost revenue resulting from the abolition of ephemeral recording rights, for example.
Another provision that we find extremely worrisome concerns digital locks. Bill C-11 introduces new rules for reproducing copyright-protected works for personal use but negates those rights by making it illegal to bypass a digital lock.
Someone who buys a DVD and wants to transfer its contents to a digital tablet, such as the Canadian PlayBook or the American iPad, will not be able to do so if the DVD has a digital lock. As we all know, various electronic media are making increased use of these locks to fight piracy and theft.
Therefore, the use of purchased works will be limited and buyers will be considered criminals if they break the lock in order to copy the work for personal use. This government will punish people who have legally obtained a work by limiting the ways they can use it and making criminals of those who want to use their legitimate purchase as they wish.
However, pirates have full use of the works they obtain illegally and will be considered just as guilty as someone who breaks a digital lock. Knowing how easy it is today for Internet users to illegally download works, pirated copies may appeal more to young Canadians than copies limited by a digital lock.
For example, why would a young person want to purchase a DVD if he cannot legally use the content on other platforms, whereas he could use a pirated copy, which is easy to obtain, as he sees fit? Bill C-11 is contradictory because, on the one hand, it allows copying of copyrighted material for personal use and, on the other, it prevents users from breaking locks that prohibit copying.
The provisions of this bill concerning digital locks are among the most restrictive in the world and cancel out the new personal use rights. This will ensure that, once again, Canadian users will be the losers. We must allow digital locks to be circumvented as long as it is for lawful and personal use.
It is not just political parties who are opposed to this bill. The Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec, the Association des libraires du Québec and many other groups have all publicly raised their concerns about this bill. As usual, this government is stubbornly ignoring Canadian interests. It prefers to address American interests under the pretext that it can do as it sees fit because it has a majority.
In fact, diplomatic cables clearly show that the Conservatives want to impose these restrictive measures as a result of pressure from the Americans. Once again, the Conservatives have decided to kowtow to the United States, which may try to impose its will on Canada more and more frequently, knowing that Canada will do what it asks without any opposition. It is high time that this government understood that it was elected by Canadians, not Americans, and high time that it started standing up for our people's rights rather than for the interests of American industries.
Many artists also spoke of their desire to have a resale right added to the bill to allow them to claim the revenue that they are currently losing. The government did not take this request into account, demonstrating once again that it does not care about the real and legitimate needs of creators, unless perhaps those creators are American.
Yes, the Liberal Party supports the modernization of the Copyright Act, but not in the form in which it has been presented to us today by this government. The bill is not balanced and does not pay enough attention to the needs of creators and consumers. The Conservative Party should have taken into account the many consultations pertaining to Bill C-32, which were held during the previous Parliament, rather than reintroducing an old bill that has not been changed despite the many amendments proposed. This government must stop ignoring the interests of Canadians and start standing up for them. It must stop doing nothing and amend this bill in order to address its many shortcomings.
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across the way for his presentation. I listened intently to what he said and I do have to question him though. 
There are many groups across the country that support this legislation because it does get tough on IP crimes. That ensures that people who produce work, the creators, are protected.
For example, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada supports the bill. It said:
 By deterring those who profit and benefit from stealing creator’s work, this legislation will help provide a framework for the digital marketplace and allow creators and companies to distribute their works in the manner that best suits them. 
A further quote:
 We strongly support the principles underlying this bill and look forward to working with Members of Parliament to adopt any technical changes needed to ensure the bill fully reflects those principles and avoid unintended consequences. 
In addition, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network said:
 We're pleased that the government is committed to getting tough on IP crimes. Piracy is a massive problem in Canada which has a tangible economic impact on government revenue, legitimate retailers, rights holders and consumers. It's extremely difficult for legitimate retailers to compete with those who abandon all ethics as they steal and rip, 
This is supported by creators across the country. I ask the member of the opposition to get behind the bill as well.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Madam Speaker, the member just read a quote that one of the associations is in favour of the bill, except it would like to see amendments. That is what we are doing. The Liberal Party is making amendments. We are ready to put the amendments forward now. If the government accepts our amendments, the bill is done and it is passed.
What does it take for the government to listen? What part of the quotes does he not understand? That is what I do not understand. It is in the quote. We are ready to work with the government, to make amendments. The Liberal Party is making amendments. They are ready, let us go, let us pass this bill. Make the amendments. It is not complicated. 
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am always stunned by the Conservatives' comments.
They say that Canadians all over the country support this bill.
They have a talent for always referring to the only doughnut that everyone wants from the dozen, and passing over the 11 doughnuts that no one wants. That is always the Conservative way.
I would like to ask my Liberal colleague if he has any idea of the number of signatories from the Canada Council—which has nearly 80 organizations that are against this bill. 
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is a new member, so perhaps he is not aware that, during the previous session, there were over 200 people. This bill has been before us for about two weeks and everyone thought it would be amended. Everyone was a little reluctant. To date, there are perhaps 80 signatories, but I am sure there will be over 200, for we continue to receive emails every day from people who want to modernize the bill, but on the condition that the current bill is amended. 
As I said to my Conservative colleague, I do not know what it will take to convince the government. Maybe if we were American they would listen to us. I do not know how this is going to work out. On our side, we are ready. We have proposed amendments. If the bill were amended, we could pass it right away.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville may ask a brief question.
Charmaine Borg: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We know that the average income of artists in Canada is quite low—less than $13,000 a year. It seems to me we should be helping these artists, encouraging them and trying to increase their income a bit.
I would like the hon. member to say a few words about this bill to explain how it is contrary to what we should be doing and how we can help these artists.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. member talked about a sum of $13,000 a year, but that was just the average. There is an artist named Céline Dion who earns more than $1 billion. It is her salary that raises the average because 80% of artists earn less than $10,000 a year. That is the problem. 
How can we help them? We can create a separate fund. There are a number of ways to do so. We can work together. We have already held a number of meetings during the last Parliament. We can help bring the new parliamentarians up to speed. There are a great number of ways to help artists. They do enough lobbying. We all know artists. We are here for them.
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, as we know, copyright is a complicated issue and features competing demands from different stakeholders. We have artistic, academic, business, technology and consumer rights that we need to balance.
I am pleased to speak to this bill because just a few years ago I did not actually know very much about copyright. I was invited to participate in a panel discussion and a movie viewing. I was invited by some Dalhousie law students and some Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, or NSCAD, students, law students and art students working together to shed some light on the issue of copyright. 
They had a screening of RiP, a remix manifesto, which is a great Canadian documentary featuring the artist Girl Talk. Girl Talk does a lot of work doing mash-ups, putting different songs together to create a completely new song. There is a big question around whether Girl Talk actually violates copyright law. I threatened to do a mash-up in the House today but I will leave that to Girl Talk. 
However, I thank the students at Dalhousie and NSCAD for holding that panel because it enlightened me on the issue of copyright and made me realize how important an issue it is to the riding of Halifax, as well as across Canada.
This bill, as we know, was brought forward in the last Parliament as Bill C-32. Despite a lot of feedback from stakeholders and community organizations that the bill did not strike the right balance, it has been reintroduced and it is exactly the same bill as before. The NDP believes that copyright legislation needs to be modernized and that it is long overdue, but this bill has a lot of errors, some glaring omissions and, in certain cases, it actually creates problems where none existed before. The NDP will work to try to amend this bill to ensure it reflects the best interests of Canadians.
The NDP believes that copyright laws in Canada can balance the rights of creators and their right to be fairly compensated for their work, and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to copyrighted materials. We will look for all possible amendments. This is what committee is for. It is to bring people forward, talk about what the solutions are and to look at amendments. We will look at all possible amendments to the bill that will create a fair royalty system for creators because, as it stands, this bill would wipe away millions of dollars in revenues for artists.
As I mentioned, the constituents of Halifax have a lot at stake with this bill. First, there is a very high student population in Halifax. Students are the creators and owners of copyrighted material in their articles, essays and works of art, but, at the same time, they are also consumers. In order to study and learn, students need access to the copyrighted works of others. 
I met with the Canadian Federation of Students and it pointed out that this three part perspective of use, creation and ownership of copyright gives students special credibility when it comes to the struggle for fair and balanced copyright law. I met with CFS representatives and they have reinforced to me how much any copyright reform needs to strike that balance. It needs to be fair and balanced.
With so many students in my riding, it follows that we have libraries. We have law libraries, medical libraries, archives, university and college libraries and public libraries. I have met with many librarians and they have told me that they need balance. If we are looking at this issue, no matter where in Nova Scotia or Canada we are, balance is needed. Most of the librarians I have spoken to have pointed out the fact that this legislation does not get the balance right, especially when it comes to digital locks.
As we have heard in the House, the bill would create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners. I want to take a second to point out that I said “content owners”. That does not necessarily mean creators or artists. It means owners. Often the owners are not the creators or the artists themselves.
The rights for owners prevent access to copyrighted works and they can be backed with fines of up to $1 million and five years in jail. That would create a situation where digital locks could actually supersede all other rights, including charter rights. If we look at people being able to modify the way they can see material because they have a visual impairment, that penalty would impact someone who has an actual charter right to view this material, which is not what anyone would intend to happen.
What does this mean? It means there is a very real danger for consumers that they could be prohibited from using content that they have already paid for. Sometimes the format just needs to be changed. It has already been paid for. There should not be anything wrong with that.
The legislation is really important to people in Halifax because my community is rich with artists and creators. We are home to movie and television studios. We have video game developers, song writers and playwrights, authors, designers, sculptors and dancers. It is really incredible to think that there could be that much talent in one small city, but we are a hub of creativity and innovation.
In being elected by those people, I have been sent to the House to protect their rights, to protect their ownership interests in their creations and to stand up for fair compensation for their work. We will bring forward all possible amendments to the bill to create a fair royalty system for artists because, as the bill stands now, it would wipe away millions of dollars in potential revenue for artists.
The bill would grant a range of new access privileges but it would not increase opportunities for remuneration for artists. This new playing field would profoundly affect the ability of artists to survive, something that all of us have seen first-hand in our ridings. Artists and creators make our communities worth living in. They deserve access to fair compensation opportunities for their work. Without those opportunities, we risk destroying our creative communities altogether.
In the bill, there is a long and complicated list of exceptions, and I do not think it adequately recognizes creators' rights. In fact, it would create new ways for consumers to access copyrighted content. We talk about balance and we are creating new ways but at the same time we are not providing new avenues to remunerate creators for their work.
The no compromise provisions in the bill would provide sweeping powers to rights holders that would supersede all other rights. If enacted, the bill would ensure that artists could not access their work despite the fact that they own it. In the example that has been shared with me, if people are studying abroad or doing long distance education they cannot keep those materials. I would go so far as to say that it is draconian and inappropriate to ask people to destroy class notes within 30 days of the course ending. This is knowledge they have learned. They have paid for this material. It seems absurd that they would need to destroy them at the end of the course.
What are the propositions? We really need to come together at committee and hear from people who are impacted by this legislation. There is a lot of opportunity to do some very good work and modernize the bill while balancing the rights of creators and the public. 
 I look forward to the bill getting to committee to see what happens. I am very hopeful that the Conservatives are listening and that they will take feedback into account and work with the NDP to bring forward good, solid amendments that will benefit everyone.
Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right, and, hopefully, once we defeat the Liberal motion, we will have an opportunity to bring the bill before committee to hear some more witness testimony. As I said in earlier comments, we have heard testimony from a vast array of people. 
 Graham Henderson of Music Canada said, we are “pleased to see long overdue copyright reform legislation back on the...agenda and a strong commitment to get it passed”.
The Canadian Publishers' Council said that the government was demonstrating “a clear understanding of the need to amend the current Copyright Act to bring it more in line with our times”. It strikes me that much of this bill would do just that. It would bring our legislation in line with copyright legislation around the world. 
Jurisdictions around the world talk a lot about digital locks, or technical protection measures. However, in jurisdictions around the world where TPMs are protected there is actually more content available. That can protect artists but they need to ensure that consumers have access to a vast array of products.
It is frustrating to hear yet again another NDP speaker talk about the only solution for Canadian artists and Canadians is to tax them more and that will solve all the problems.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that committee provides the opportunity to hear from stakeholders and from people in the community about the pluses and minuses, the good points and bad points. He also pointed out that, the last time the bill came around, the committee heard from all types of people from around Canada who gave feedback about this legislation. So, why is the bill exactly the same as last time?
 If we really care about feedback from Canadians, if we really are listening to them, why would the bill be exactly the same as last time? I hope that this time the Conservatives actually listen.
Robert Aubin: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why we, as legislators, are constantly pitting consumers against creators.
As a consumer of music or any other art form, I would like to be able to buy a work and know for sure that the creator who produced it was compensated.
From what I understand of the current bill—and I would like clarification from the hon. member on this—if we pass it in its current form, the coming weeks will have to be spent creating fair trade music and fair trade art, like the fair trade coffee and chocolate we get from developing countries. It does not seem to me that we are going completely in the right direction.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observation that so often the government is not actually looking out for creators. 
If we look critically at this legislation, we can see that it would protect owners. As I said in my speech, owners are not necessarily creators, owners are not necessarily artists and owners are not necessarily users. They are publishers. They are music companies. They are industry. 
This is one-sided legislation where the rights of owners would be protected but everybody else would be left out in the cold.
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I can tell the member who we are looking out for. This party will always stand up and look out for consumers across this country. 
One of the opposition amendments is to place an iPod tax on MP3 players, on telephones and on other pieces of technology that actually play some of the music that is downloaded illegally.
I would first congratulate the member for Halifax and all Nova Scotians for the Halifax Irving Shipyard's winning bid this week. It is a tremendous opportunity, of course.
What will the member do for consumers in her riding, particularly single parents trying to buy Christmas presents for their children?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his congratulations and extend them to him because a lot of the shipbuilders live in his riding.
With respect to representing consumers, I will not send them to jail for five years and I will not fine them $1 million because they may have made a mistake or tried to bust a digital lock on something that they actually already own.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Madam Speaker, there have been consultations on this travel motion and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That in relation to its study of drugs and alcohol in prison, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Kingston, Ontario, and environs on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)

Government Orders
Copyright Modernization Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Paulina Ayala: Madam Speaker, no one is against the modernization of the act, which has not been updated since 1988 and is considered obsolete because of the advent of the Internet and digital technologies. Many Quebec and Canadian creators have been waiting a long time for the legislation to be overhauled. Their expectations have been shattered and now they realize that the government has responded to institutional and, above all, corporate needs, and definitely not to the basic need of supporting creation.
If there is to be no creation, no support for the creative instinct that inspires any material that could be subject to the principles of copyright, why are we wasting our time setting copyright guidelines? This bill has drawn a great deal of criticism from all stakeholders affected by Bill C-11, be they academics, whom the bill is trying to please, or artists, who provide a revenue stream on which the government has always counted. There are also the members of the general public, who will be criminalized for the personal use of artistic material that they purchase. Pierre-Paul Noreau, of the newspaper Le Soleil had this to say:
 What is astounding about the government's approach is that Bill C-11 is the exact replica of Bill C-32, which died on the order paper when the federal election was called. 
But there was a long series of consultations between the two bills. Experts, artists and spokespeople from groups concerned with copyright testified during 20 meetings of a hard-working legislative committee. But since the government had already made up its mind, nothing that was said changed the original bill. The government did not even listen to constructive criticism of its approach. Cabinet reacts to such criticism by saying that amendments are still possible.
In its current form, Bill C-11 is a catastrophe for authors, since it directly undermines copyright, which is how authors earn their meagre incomes. The proposal reduces the potential to earn real dollars and does not offer any alternatives. For example, the education system will now have much more freedom to use works in class, whereas it currently pays tens of millions of dollars to authors every year. Similarly, the logical principle of a levy on blank cassettes and CDs that had existed until now, but that has been bringing in less and less money, will not apply to digital audio recorders such as iPods, which have replaced these formats for storing copied music and images. This means that artists will see their revenue sources dry up in the interest of more freedom for users.
The answer is sad, yet clear. Since the government has said that it is open only to technical amendments, creators will have to cling to the hope of the mandatory review that will be conducted in five years, if they are able to hold out that long. This long-awaited update contains several well-targeted elements. Unfortunately, it has one major weakness. The reform fails to consider the minor creators. Some creators and participants in the cultural industry have criticized the government for failing to extend the royalties they receive on blank CDs to new technologies, such as the iPod, in order to compensate them for the reproduction of their works.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 1:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member will have six minutes left the next time this bill is called for debate.
The House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery Rebuilding ActRyan Cleary:  moved that Bill C-308, An Act respecting a Commission of Inquiry into the development and implementation of a national fishery rebuilding strategy for fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Madam Speaker, my private member's bill, Bill C-308, is an act respecting a commission of inquiry into the development and implementation of a national fishery rebuilding strategy for fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. 
The short title of my bill, the title that cuts to the chase, is the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery rebuilding act. The key word is “rebuilding”. We must rebuild. We must rebuild what was once one of the world's greatest protein resources, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. We must rebuild what has been lost to us. We must rebuild the fish stocks and use them as a foundation for life after oil, as a foundation for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let “rebuild” be the one word that resonates with every member of the House.
It is almost 20 years after the fall of the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fisheries and there has been practically no rebuilding, none. Why? This is the key question that an inquiry would answer. Why have stocks not rejuvenated? Why have stocks not been rebuilt? Why has the moratorium stretched almost 20 years when John Crosbie said, in 1992, that it would last only two years? Commercial fish stocks are in desperate shape, about as desperate as they were when the fisheries were first closed. Why?
Soon after Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, she handed over responsibility of her fisheries to the Government of Canada to manage. The fisheries were our offshore oil of today, an incredible resource and wealth, only, unlike oil, the fisheries were an incredible renewable resource, a renewable wealth.
Sixty-two years after Confederation and our commercial fisheries for species such as cod, what was once known as Newfoundland currency, are on their knees. How far have we fallen? For most of the year, it is illegal to jig a cod, to jig a fish from the vastness of the north Atlantic.
What was once seen as a Newfoundland birthright is now a crime. However, the real crime is the fact that nothing has been done, that the fish resource has not been rebuilt, that we have not acted. The real crime is that a generation later and the stocks are still in the same desperate shape.
The Grand Banks of Newfoundland were fished out. It is plain and simple.
In the year 1968, the northern cod catch was officially recorded at 810,000 tonnes, three times the estimated maximum sustainable catch. Unofficially, more than one million tonnes of northern cod were taken from the sea that year. It has been downhill ever since.
To be clear, this is not about blame. There is blame to be shared by everyone, by the Government of Canada, by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by foreign trawlers, by our own domestic fleet, by viewing the fishery as an occupation of last resort, by international organizations that are powerless, that are toothless to manage migratory stocks, by the use of fish stocks as international bargaining chips, by greed, by apathy everywhere. The apathy must end.
To quote Newfoundlander Rex Murphy from a National Post column earlier this month:
 Newfoundland is in silent crisis...Increasingly, St. John’s highly concentrated economy resembles a sort of miniature Hong Kong amidst an increasingly deserted province. Out-migration is stealing a whole generation of Newfoundlanders. The outports are becoming just places “where the parents live,” and the larger centres outside St. John’s have become dominated by old-age homes. 
To quote another Newfoundlander, Zita Cobb of Fogo Island, who is renowned as an entrepreneur and a visionary and who is behind one of the largest projects every attempted to preserve even a small portion of rural Newfoundland. She says, “If something isn't done now, we are going to be disconnected from our sense of community and our sense of past. The most tragic thing that could happen and it is happening now, is for a son not to understand his father's life”.
Our Newfoundland and Labrador culture, a culture steeped in the fishery, is slowly dying. Let Me Fish Off Cape Saint Mary's is one of the most powerful Newfoundland and Labrador songs ever written. Will there come a day when we will not relate to that song, or a day when we are forced to change the words to, “Let me drill off Fort McMurray”? We must rebuild, or that will happen.
The ultimate tragedy is not so much that the stocks collapsed, but that there is no plan to rebuild them. That is Confederation's greatest failure. That is our national embarrassment. That is our national shame. That is Newfoundland and Labrador's silent crisis.
Canada once bore the reputation as a great steward of the sea. Our reputation today is worth as much as an empty net. An inquiry would investigate federal and provincial fisheries management. Is the management working? The ultimate measure of that management is the state of the stocks, the state of the industry. The management, obviously, is not working. Stock after stock has failed.
One of the last reports on northern cod was carried out in 2005 by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The report was entitled, “Northern Cod: A Failure of Canadian Fisheries Management”. The title says it all.
Ask me what was done with that report. Nothing, even though the report took DFO to task for failing to recognize mismanagement as one of the reasons for the stock collapse. That report also questioned why a recovery plan had not been drawn up describing DFO's lack of long-term vision as astonishing.
The federal Conservative government called an inquiry in 2009 into the decline of sockeye salmon on British Columbia's Fraser River. How can the federal government investigate management policy on one end of the country and not the other, when it has so clearly failed everywhere?
Newfoundland and Labrador's commercial salmon fishery was shut down in 1991, 20 years ago this week. There has been no recovery. Do hon. members see a trend? Because there is a trend.
An inquiry would also investigate the state of fishery science. Science has and is being gutted. Instead of rebuilding for the future, we are taking away our opportunity for a future.
An inquiry would also investigate fisheries enforcement and quotas. Who rules the rights to the fish in the sea and who exactly is fishing the quotas? Who is benefiting from the quotas? An inquiry would investigate the effectiveness of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization in managing migratory stocks outside the 200 mile limit. Has it been effective? Absolutely not.
At NAFO's recent general meeting in Halifax the quotas for most groundfish stocks were cut across the board. All stocks are in trouble.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which I sit on, tabled a report in the House last week on the snow crab resource. The study was triggered by concerns expressed after DFO cut the snow crab harvest in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence by 63%. DFO had been warned to cut the quota but the minister ignored the advice. Again, this is not about blame. I purposely avoid laying blame. That is not what this is about.
Recommendation three of the snow crab report advises that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans strike a task force to review the snow crab assessment process and the management of the fishery. However, the problem is not just with the management of the snow crab resource but also with the management of all the fish that swim off Newfoundland and Labrador shores. Today in my province, pan-size fish are being exported to places such as China and the U.S. for processing while the plants we have left are closing permanently and our aging plant workers are protesting in the streets. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel and the bottom of the sea. We must rebuild.
Experts have said that a healthy groundfish stock could provide an annual harvest of 400,000 tonnes. The total groundfish harvest last year for all of Newfoundland and Labrador amounted to less than 20,000 tonnes. We could have a healthy harvest of 400,000 tonnes. Last year, it was less than 20,000 tonnes, which is a shadow or skeleton of our once great fisheries of the great Grand Banks of Newfoundland. The time to rebuild is now.
The Prime Minister once described the east coast as having a culture of defeat. I stand before the members to say that is not the case. It is far from it. We are fighting for our culture and our rural way of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to ensure that we can provide for ourselves rather than revert to what we have been labelled in the past, a label which I am sure everyone in the House has heard and one that is absolutely incorrect, that being that we are a drain on Canadian Confederation. That is not the case.
If the fisheries and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland had been banks that were mismanaged into bankruptcy there would have been demands for accountability, for reform and for an overhaul to ensure that never happened again. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador in my home province deserve no less.
I urge all hon. members to support my private member's bill. It is not just the fish stocks that need rebuilding but also our faith in this country to help individual provinces stand on their own.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Madam Speaker, in just a few minutes we will have opportunity to disagree with my colleague on many of the points he made in his eloquent presentation.
 What he did not flesh out well enough for us is the number of reviews that have already taken place since 1992 into the collapse of the cod stocks. He only referred to one. I took part in that study. However, there were at least a dozen, some from the provinces, from the federal government, from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and one from the Auditor General's Office. There is a long list.
What does the member think spending millions of dollars would do that these other studies have not done? The follow-up question would be, why is the province of Newfoundland not supporting his call for a commission of inquiry into the matter?
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, I would be interested to hear exactly which points in my speech the hon. member disagreed with. 
As for why the Progressive Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not called for an inquiry, I suggest that the hon. Conservative member across the way ask the Minister of Fisheries.
The government has to make a decision as to whether there will be an inquiry and the decision has to come not just from the federal Conservative government but also from the provincial government of my home province. The federal Government of Canada looks after harvesting. The provincial government looks after processing. The federal government looks after fishing boats. My home province looks after fishing plants. The bottom line is that the management at the federal and provincial levels of government has not worked. Maybe it is the fact that both levels of government do not want to admit that the management has not worked.
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked why we should spend millions of dollars on an inquiry. His province is spending millions of dollars on an inquiry into a salmon run that failed miserably.
My hon. colleague from Newfoundland is absolutely correct. I was the NDP fisheries critic for over 13 years. I asked for a national federal inquiry into the practices and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In the period 1998 to 2000 the Hutchings and Myers report came out, which the hon. parliamentary secretary should know, and those two scientists indicated that there was science manipulation at the very highest levels within DFO when it came to the collapse of the cod stocks. The government of the day was warned that the cod stocks were in trouble and it ignored that warning. 
That is just one tiny element of why we need to get to the bottom of the serious mismanagement of the fisheries and oceans in this country. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, the question has been asked as to how many reports have been written in the past looking into the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: How many have been ignored?
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. How many reports into the fishery have been ignored? There are untold numbers. There is an inquiry going on into the disappearance of salmon stocks in B.C.'s Fraser River. The last I heard, that inquiry has a price tag of roughly $25 million. 
The point I want to make is that we have not had a ground fishery since 1992, going back 19 years. There are experts who say if it was a healthy resource there could have been an annual harvest of 400,000 tonnes going back 19 years and every year into the future. How many untold hundreds of millions of dollars would that be worth?
In terms of the question about why we need another inquiry, we need an inquiry specifically into why the management of this fishery has failed. Why has it failed? I challenge the member opposite to show me the report that shows the way forward, that shows all the problems with the management of the fisheries in the past. That report does not exist. The only way to get a report is to have an inquiry into the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries.
Randy Kamp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-308. 
I thank my colleague for his comments on this. I know he has an interest in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a province I love as well, having spent a fair bit of time there in my current capacity. I am pleased to see that he appears to have abandoned any notions of his musings in earlier years of separation from Confederation.
I agree with him when he talks about the importance of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I do want to say up front that we are not going to support the bill. 
The bill is premised on several assumptions, false assumptions in large part, that I would like to address.
The first of these is that there has been no recovery of fish stocks since the 1990s and that this has led to more than 80,000 people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not quite true. 
The decline of fish stocks is blamed on several factors, including: inaccurate scientific data and projections; environmental factors, including temperature shifts in the ocean; predation; and poor fisheries management, including overfishing. This is why the collapse of the Atlantic ground fisheries and related fisheries management practices have already been thoroughly reviewed. 
There have been at least 12 different reports or studies published on the topic over the past 18 years. For example, the latest report, released in September of this year by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, made several recommendations for a long-term strategic approach to the sustainability of eastern Canadian groundfish fisheries. As a result of these numerous reports and studies, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has implemented modern fisheries management policies. The department is committed to continued conservation and rebuilding efforts and to perfecting its practices to ensure the conservation of groundfish stocks in the Atlantic.
The number of registered harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador has declined; about this, the member is correct. It is notable that many of those who remained transitioned their enterprises to more lucrative shellfish species, like snow crab, shrimp, and lobster. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador has increased its relative importance in Canada's commercial harvesting industry. In 1990 the province accounted for 20% of the total value of commercial landings in Canada. Today that share has increased to 30%. Since 1990, the average annual growth in the value of Newfoundland and Labrador commercial landings has been higher than that of any other province. 
Second, on reading the bill one might be led to believe that there had been a lack of organized efforts to rebuild Newfoundland and Labrador's fisheries or to restore the province's economic base. Let me set the record straight. In the past 20 years, the government has invested over $4 billion to assist the industry and help affected communities adjust to the changes in the resource base. This included $2.5 billion in income replacement, over $600 million in training and counselling, and $1 billion on licence retirement, economic diversification, stock rebuilding, et cetera. In addition, allocation of various shellfish species was also provided to facilitate the diversification of the industry. 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in an intentional and systematic way to address these challenges. For example, shortly after the announcement of the second moratorium on the harvesting of southern and northern gulf stocks of Atlantic cod, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador formed the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for Cod Rebuilding. The action team was mandated to develop a stock rebuilding and long-term management strategy for the four major cod stocks adjacent to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These efforts resulted in the release of the federal-provincial strategy for the rebuilding of Atlantic cod stocks.
In terms of international fisheries management practices, to which my colleague referred, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, has made significant improvements in fisheries management, science, and enforcement. These improvements have been validated by the recently released NAFO performance review, which included the input of external experts. I encourage my colleague to read it.
Some improvements noted in the NAFO performance review were in key areas such as stock management, science advice, protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and enforcement measures. I also want to mention that NAFO scientists have become world leaders in the provision of science advice on vulnerable marine ecosystems. NAFO has taken key steps to strengthen enforcement measures leading to improvement in compliance. 
For example, since 2006, it has reached new definitions of a range of serious infringements. There has been the development of provisions for immediate recall to port for major infractions and clearer directions to NAFO members on penalties to be employed by flag states for serious infringements. As a result of these changes and thanks largely to Canadian-led enforcement efforts, infractions in NAFO areas have been significantly, even dramatically reduced.
Bill C-308 mistakenly accuses NAFO of failing to rebuild migratory fish stocks. I should point out that NAFO is responsible for the management of straddling stocks, not migratory species. Rebuilding straddling stocks has now been identified as one of the main objectives of NAFO which is reflected in the new convention which was ratified by the Government of Canada in December 2009.
Over the past several years, NAFO, led by Canada, has implemented a number of innovative rebuilding plans for the recovery of moratorius stocks and to rebuild fragile stocks. These plans are based on scientific advice and the precautionary approach. They include conservation plans and rebuilding strategies for American plaice and cod.
In 2009 NAFO reopened two key stocks, 3M cod and 3LN red fish, that were under moratorium for over a decade. Recovery of other stocks is proving successful and some may be eligible for reopening in the next few years.
In the bill, my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl identifies fisheries as:
 --a renewable resource which can, with revitalized conservation and management practices, be rebuilt for the benefit of present and future generations and contribute towards the economic growth of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Canada. 
That is exactly what we have done.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is responsible for developing and implementing policies and programs in support of Canada's scientific, ecological, social and economic interests in oceans and fresh waters. In working toward these outcomes, the department is guided by the principles of sound scientific knowledge and effective management.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada's approach to fisheries management has changed significantly over the last two decades. The sustainable fisheries framework introduced in April 2009 has introduced policies that provide the basis for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner that supports conservation and sustainable use of our fisheries resources. 
I encourage my colleague to become familiar with this framework. He will find it incorporates existing fisheries management policies with new and evolving policies and provides planning and monitoring tools. These policies will promote the continued sustainability of stocks upon which commercial fisheries depend. As other stocks grow, emerging commercial fisheries will be managed in a way that is sustainable.
As these actions demonstrate, this government continues to take action to rebuild the Atlantic fisheries and no inquiry is necessary.
Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to private member's Bill C-308 put forward by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I support this piece of legislation, as does the Liberal Party of Canada.
Nearly two years after the first commercial fishing moratorium was introduced, there has still been no substantial recovery of fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The collapse of the fishery has had devastating effects on communities in rural Newfoundland because this had been the largest fishery in Canada and the focal point of the local economy.
The recent signs of possible recovery are hopeful but that only makes it more important that we do everything in our power as a nation to prevent this from happening again. It is important that we really understand what we need to do differently to ensure the health of our fish stocks.
The Liberal Party supports this long overdue federal inquiry into the collapse and mismanagement of fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the many inquires that have been held into this regrettable situation. I want to point out that the result that Canadians need has not been achieved. We have not fully understood how the Government of Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans made the decisions that led to the absolute collapse of such an important fish stock. It is urgent that we understand that. We are seeing a repeat of this kind of crash with other fish stock.
As the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl mentioned, the parliamentary committee on fisheries has been studying for many months the collapse of the snow crab stock. I had the privilege of being on that committee for a year. We learned to our surprise and shock that the department had not been implementing the precautionary principle in its management of the snow crab in 2009, and we are now hearing that the precautionary principle was not being implemented as a clear framework.
The precautionary principle is something people have understood since the 1980s. We had an earth summit in the early 1990s. We had a world summit on sustainable development in 2002. The precautionary principle surely is a baseline approach for managing these important renewable natural resources, but it has not been a baseline approach in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. An inquiry is an important tool in order to do a better job and get a better result.
It is not just on the east coast of Canada that we are having challenges with sustainable management of important fisheries. We have our challenges on the west coast as well, and I will point to the salmon fishery as a prime example.
The Fraser River sockeye salmon stock collapsed in 2010. The numbers came in at one-tenth the number expected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There was an outcry from people asking why our fisheries were being mismanaged, not just to the extent that we were having crashes, but to the extent that we did not even know why we were having crashes. Fortunately, the Cohen inquiry is looking into the disaster in the Pacific salmon fishery. We need that same kind of attention and that same kind of lens on the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is not to say that an inquiry is enough. Other things need to be done as well, and one of those things is the adequate funding of fishery science. Instead, a hatchet is being taken to the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, cutting $57 million this year alone. That means research scientists along with budgets for international co-operation projects to identify what is happening with the salmon when they go outside Canadian jurisdiction will be cut. 
It means boats will be tied up in harbours, DFO research vessels will be tied up in harbours, unable to afford the gas to go out and find out what is happening. It means that funding for the POST listening system, which is an innovative way of tracking small salmon smolts on the west coast of Canada to identify where they are disappearing and helping us understand why they are disappearing, is woefully inadequate for what is necessary to actually track these smolts as they go out into the ocean. It remains a black box, a mystery, why, year after year, other than for a few anomaly years, we are having decline in our precious stocks of Pacific salmon. 
Pacific salmon, like cod on the east coast, is an iconic species for Canadians. It has been the basis for the economies of coastal communities. It has been the basis for the culture of Canadian aboriginal peoples. It has been part of their identity, their celebration. It has been central to the Pacific coast. Our salmon stocks are disappearing and we do not even know why. Yet, we are cutting the budgets of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which is charged with the responsibility of protecting salmon and other important stocks. This is shocking. That is the kind of thing that I expect an inquiry into the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador to shed a light on, so that all Canadians can support having conservation as a number one principle. The degree to which conservation was not held as a fundamental principle by the previous fisheries minister was highlighted in the snow crab process.
 I would disagree in this small point with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl when he said it is not about laying blame. Actually, I disagree with that. We had a Conservative fisheries minister who deliberately and knowingly ignored the advice of her fisheries scientists who said that there was a very strong risk of a collapse of the snow crab stocks if the quotas were not reduced. That minister ignored the advice of her scientists and took the advice of lobbyists who said, “No, don't worry. Be happy. Keep the quota where it's been”.
We cannot allow that kind of interference in our fisheries management, not on the east coast and not on the west coast. We cannot allow these kinds of cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when we are losing these iconic stocks and we have not even understood why.
Permit me a quick aside about the aquaculture review that the fisheries committee was undertaking.
Recently, the management of the aquaculture industry and potential impacts on wild salmon has been transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The regulation of that important industry so that it does not affect our wild fish stocks is a very important role of Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It needs to do a better job than the province was doing in the past. How can we expect the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do its job, to understand the science of the aquaculture industry and the wild fisheries in those interactions? How can we expect it to do that with these massive cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
I support, and the Liberal Party supports, this inquiry because we need more, not less, transparency and more, not less, accountability and more, not less, science so that we can protect our wild fisheries this year, the next decade, and into the future as our legacy to our children
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador for his intervention. I also thank the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for allowing Canada to join Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949.
I would say that what salmon is to British Columbians, what pickerel and bass are to central Canadians, what Arctic char is to northern Canada, cod fish is to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a symbol of heritage. It is a symbol of the people. In fact, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can trace their ancestry to people who have fished the great seas in the past for their livelihood. 
With Remembrance Week coming up, it would be fair to say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not only fed the world, they have also fed many great soldiers, airmen, airwomen and sailors not only in Canada but our Allies in other countries throughout the war effort as well. Many a soldier ate bully beef as well as salt cod. 
We also know that trade between the Caribbean and Newfoundland and Labrador ran from cod to rum. I thought that was a balanced trade deal.
However, I believe the reason why the Conservatives do not want an inquiry is because they do not want to know the truth. They do not want to know the facts. 
I was on the fisheries and oceans committee for over 13 years. We studied all aspects of the fisheries in this country to death to come up with reports, of which 95% were unanimous, meaning members of the Reform, Alliance, the PC Party, the Bloc Québécois, NDP, Liberals and the Conservatives at the time supported those recommendations, only to have them fall flat on the desk of the minister of the day.
In 1998, I asked for a full judicial inquiry into the practices and policies of the management of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.
 Hutchings and Myers are the best oceanographic and fishery scientists in Canada and the world. They said very clearly in their report when they came to Parliament Hill that in their opinion science had been manipulated at the highest levels when it came to the cod crisis in this country. What party was in government at the time that happened? It was the Conservative Party of Canada. Those are the facts.
In my mind, it was the Kirby report of 1982, which formulated the companies of Fisheries Products International and National Seas, that started the over aggressive fishing of those stocks which caused the downfall of the outports of not only Newfoundland and Labrador but also the provinces of P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
People anywhere who believe that the management of Canadian fisheries is any good at all are fooling themselves. We and the Conservatives know that is not the case. I can quote numerous interventions wherein Progressive Conservatives, Reformers and members of the Alliance were slamming the Liberal Party for the mismanagement of the fisheries in Canada. They were good at it too.
I remember a certain John Cummins of British Columbia who was probably one of the most vocal critics of fisheries management in this country. He did a fantastic job at it because he was a commercial fisherman. Even his own party did not like some of his criticisms. However, he was not only standing up and fighting for the fishermen of his province but also for their way of life. On some parts I obviously disagreed with him but I could not knock his passion and desire to stand up for the men and women whose livelihoods were made from the sea.
Right now both the provincial and federal governments are concentrating on oil resources, the so-called non-renewable resources of this country, the petro-economy. Time and again I have asked, what will happen when oil and gas resources are gone? No response is forthcoming. There is only silence on that side. 
If the fisheries are managed correctly and properly, seven generations down the road will be able to access a renewable, natural, healthy, vibrant food-based resource, not just for the people of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador but for the entire world.
Why, in the life of any parliamentarian, would we not want to do everything possible, everything within our power, be it federally, provincially or municipally, including opposition members, to ensure the sanctity and the survival of that renewable resource?
I have tremendous respect for my good friend and hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is one of the nicest people I have ever met, but he quotes from and talks about the FRCC report. I have worked for a long time with the FRCC. Its members are fantastic fishermen, scientists, environmentalists, et cetera. However, what did the government just do to the FRCC? It cut its funding to the point where it no longer will exist.
One second the Conservatives will quote its report and hand it up as a litmus of sound management and advice and then cut its funding. Why do they do that? How many scientists now within DFO across this country are about to lose their jobs? When we heard the parliamentary secretary speak, I felt like buying a fishing boat. I felt like quitting my job, selling everything and going out fishing because, according to them, I am going to be well off. That is what Crosbie said in 1992. I remember when Pierre Pettigrew introduced the TAGS program so people would get five years of employment subsidy and payment subsidies and retraining so those who were left in the fishery would be well off. The folks were told not to worry, that they would be given bit of money, with a few shackles here, and they could train to be barbers. We had five barbers one time train for one small town of a couple of hundred people. That turned out really well. The fact is that it failed.
What did Premier Dunderdale say the day after she was elected? She said that they would need to deal with the fishery and reduce the number of fishermen and plant workers in the province. Not necessarily like that, but she said words similar to that. It is funny that she never spoke like that during the campaign. She only spoke like that after the campaign.
I am not blaming anyone here. It was not the Conservatives alone that mismanaged the fisheries. It was the federal Governments of Canada, the provincial governments, the fishing industry, the international fleets and NAFO. Everyone is partially to blame for this, including, I may say, the opposition, at times pushing for extra resources to help people get through the bad times, to get their EI, et cetera. We are all responsible for the downturn in the fishery. It is also our job to hold them to their fire, not just the Conservatives but the Liberals and previous governments before that. It is not a question of pinning one blame against the other. That is easy to do.
However, an inquiry would get everything out in the open and find out where the problems were, what the government and others have been doing to this point and where the road map to the future leads. That is Canada's national shame and the world looks at us saying that we had one of the world's largest, abundant, prolific protein fish stocks on the planet and now it is minuscule compared to what it used to be. Over 20 years and more, it is still the way it was in 1992. That is the shame.
I just want to thank my hon. colleague from St. John's, Newfoundland, for bringing this forward. I ask the government to reconsider, call for the inquiry, get the facts on the table and truly help the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-308, the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery Rebuilding Act. 
It was cod that first brought Europeans to Newfoundland. It was catching, salting, drying and marketing of cod that prompted the first settlements in this region. The fishery has been active for hundreds of years in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was and remains an integral part of its culture and life.
The cod catch peaked in 1968 at 810,000 tonnes. However, as we know, the industry collapsed in the early 1990s. Several factors have been cited as causing the collapse, overfishing, lack of foresight and environmental factors among them. As a result, a two-year moratorium on the northern cod fishery was announced July 2, 1992, by the Honourable John Crosbie, then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. By 1993, six cod populations had collapsed, forcing a complete moratorium on fishing. Populations had decreased by at least 75% in all stocks, by 90% in three of the six stocks and by 99% in the case of northern cod, previously the largest cod fishery in the world.
There have been numerous reports and studies on this subject. Dr. Leslie Harris published the influential 1990 “Independent Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stocks”, the “Report of the Northern Cod Review Panel”, and the 2004 “A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast”. In 1993, the Task Force on Incomes and Adjustments in the Atlantic Fishery published “Charting a New Course: Towards the Fishery of the Future”, also known as the Cashin report. 
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council produced “A Groundfish Conservation Framework for Atlantic Canada”. In 2001 it published “The Management of Fisheries on Canada's Atlantic Coast: A Discussion Document on Policy Direction and Principles”, and in 2003 it published “Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada's Atlantic Fisheries”. Since 2003, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council alone has published more than 50 reports on stock conditions, conservation and just about every aspect of the fishery, including “Towards Recovered and Sustainable Groundfish Fisheries in Eastern Canada”, which was released just last month. 
Let us not overlook the work of our own House committees, starting with the 2002 “Report on Foreign Overfishing: Its Impacts and Solutions” from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. In 2005 the committee produced the “Report on Northern Cod: A Failure of Canadian Fisheries Management” and in 2009 its report on “Amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention”, not mention the House committee's other regular reports.
We cannot forget the work of Senate committees, including the 2003 report “Straddling Fish Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic” and the 2005 “Interim Report on Canada's New and Evolving Policy Framework for Managing Fisheries and Oceans”.
All of this is to say that this issue has been studied in considerable depth. The federal government has worked with Atlantic provinces on projects for regional economic development and fisheries adjustments since the collapse. I would like to specifically mention the 2003 federal and provincial all-party committee report that presented alternatives to full closure of the cod fisheries. The report, entitled “Stability, Sustainability and Prosperity: Charting a Future for Northern and Gulf Cod Stocks”, presented solutions such as reducing the seal population, improving fisheries science, implementing sustainable fishing practices and improved enforcement of fisheries management regulations.
We are well aware of major factors in the groundfish decline. Environmental conditions, predator-prey relations and excessive harvesting have all been identified as causes of stock declines. 
Fishing levels were set above conservation standards, fishers caught more than they were allocated and some fishers used unsustainable fishing practices. The government and industry learned from these crises and since the moratorium have dramatically changed fisheries management practices, science research and international practices. 
Canada is not alone in working on these issues. Countries that are members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, including Norway, Iceland, Russia, Japan, the European Union, the United States and South Korea, among others, have made the rebuilding of fish stocks one of the primary objectives. This is reflected in the new convention as well as within the shared scientific and management activities member countries undertake to ensure stocks are managed under the precautionary approach and that sensitive habitat for fish stocks is adequately protected.
In line with the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial priority for the recovery of cod and American plaice stocks, it was encouraging to see the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization adopt new rebuilding plans for these species on the Grand Banks. These plans are in line with our precautionary approach to fisheries management.
Rebuilding plans can only be successful if all countries involved work together with measures such as these and continue to apply enforcement measures to keep bycatches to the lowest possible level.
Despite the fact that shellfish have dominated the Atlantic fishing industry in terms of value and effort since the collapse of most groundfish species in the 1990s, cod still holds a place of pre-eminence among those who rely on the fishery for their livelihood as a species upon which the Atlantic fishery was built. 
The cod fishery is at the core of the cultural roots of many coastal rural communities in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This is the reason why conservation and rebuilding of Atlantic cod stocks is a government priority and there are indications that some code stocks are beginning to recover, such as cod on the eastern Scotian shelf and the Flemish Cap. 
We are taking action on the priorities of Canadians who work hard and play by the rules and we have steered our country through the worst global economic recession since the 1930s. We seek to promote a strong quality of life in all communities, cities, towns and rural communities, to respect and preserve the culture and values of rural Canada and help ensure the success of traditional industries like the fisheries.
Consider our actions in the past: providing to fish harvesters the same lifetime capital gains exemption enjoyed by farmers and small business owners; in supporting small coastal communities through regulatory initiatives in support of the aquaculture sector; and through investments in small craft harbours.
The global economy remains fragile and Canadians remain concerned about their jobs and their children's future. Government is making the necessary investments to protect Canadians and create jobs now, while laying a strong foundation for long-term economic growth.
The benefits of fishery decisions made today may not accrue until a number of years in the future. Those who bear the brunt of the immediate costs may not be those who will realize the future benefits of our work today. This is why the government believes the best way forward is to manage the recovery of fish stocks through a comprehensive, integrated and Atlantic-wide approach that will build on the unprecedented collaboration of all parties to date.
Given the studies, reports and initiatives I have just mentioned and given the changes implemented as well as continuing progress since the moratorium, a judicial inquiry, as proposed in Bill C-308, would be a costly and duplicative exercise. An inquiry would divert funds and resources away from the ongoing efforts to strengthen Canada's fisheries and the Canadian economy.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He may begin his comments, but I will have to interrupt him shortly.
Philip Toone: Madam Speaker, I will do my best to be very brief.
I rise in the House today in support of my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and his bill, Bill C-308.
Like my colleague, I represent a riding that relies on fisheries for its livelihood. Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is made up of two regions that rely on fishing. Particularly in the islands, the fisheries form the bedrock of this community's culture.
The short title of the bill is the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery rebuilding act. I am impressed by the focus for the bill, which is on rebuilding.
In the bill's terms of reference, it commits to conducting an inquiry: 
 —without seeking to find fault on the part of any individual, community or organization, and with the overall aim of respecting conservation, rebuilding and sustainability of all fish stock and encouraging broad cooperation among stakeholders. 
Rather than ascribing blame to any group or individual for the gradual collapse of one vital fishery after another, Bill C-308 focuses instead on how the federal government can take responsibility for the mismanagement of the east coast fisheries.
It requires the government to hold an inquiry into the reasons why the fisheries have collapsed and how the stakeholders can work together to rebuild the Newfoundland fisheries.
The Deputy Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member. He will have eight and a half minutes when the bill returns on the order paper.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)