Bill C-11 Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Okay.

I have now Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, for my part I do want to see the bill passed, with the right amendments, if it is changed as it ought to be. However, the Conservatives appear to have orders to turn this into a farce. I recognize that they have a majority, but what they're proposing here is very undemocratic. The fact that they have already decided at the first meeting of the committee how long this should take and have already decided to impose closure at the committee's very first meeting is outrageous.

The fact that they have a majority should be all the more reason for them to realize that they don't have to act like thugs, which is what effectively they're doing.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Go ahead, Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I don't think there's a person in this room who does not want to see a good, strong, comprehensive copyright bill come out of this committee. This is something that affects a lot of people and a lot of people's livelihoods. To just arbitrarily say that we're going to talk about it for this long, and then that's it, does a disservice to Canadians.

We keep hearing in the House and here today that this bill was discussed in the last Parliament and so forth. I wasn't here, and there are four other gentlemen present who weren't here. I don't know.... There may be new or different points of view that can be looked at in this bill to make it work for Canadians.

I'm not sure whether the interest is to get it through simply to get it through or to get a bill that works and serves Canadians.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Benskin.

Go ahead, Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm seeing two contradictions here. Number one is that in the course of debate, the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers, including the minister of heritage, talked openly about technical amendments that were required.

There is no shortage of suggestions as to amendments, and I don't think we're going to flesh out the possibility of these amendments. If we limit the debate and limit the people heard as witnesses, it's not going to be adequate.

The second one is that not too long ago we put forward the argument that when it comes to questions to witnesses, the time was not based on party but on every individual around this table. Now it's five minutes per party. Shouldn't it be five minutes per person?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd be fine with that amendment if you wanted to move it, but I'd also be very happy to bring to this debate some background on how this bill was put together, just to remind members of the committee of how it was done. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Benskin, I believe in the last Parliament, on this and other matters, and I recognize that he's been on this file for some time.

This bill was put together as a result of the broadest consultation on any government bill that I'm aware of. We entertained submissions from groups, including electronic submissions. In excess of 8,000 submissions came in written form, but we also had meetings in cities right across this country.

We admit the bill is not a perfect copyright bill. There is no perfect copyright bill, because you cannot satisfy every group that has an interest in copyright. You cannot give every group everything it wants. If you do that, you do it at the expense of another group that also has an interest in copyright. That's why the bill seeks balance, and balance means compromise, and compromise isn't perfect. That is what the bill is about.

For members who suggest that we are trying to force this through—some have used derogatory terms that I won't repeat—I suggest that they review the history of recent Parliaments. To the best of my knowledge, the 38th Parliament brought a bill, Bill C-60, that did not go anywhere. The 39th Parliament, to which I was elected for the first time, brought Bill C-61. It did not get passed. The last Parliament brought Bill C-32. It did not get passed either. I think it is incumbent on this Parliament to approach this bill with the sense of urgency that people in this country feel with respect to protection of property rights.

I have met with interest groups from right across the spectrum. Every single one of them knows, and they have known for a very long time, that a new copyright bill was going to be passed and needed to be passed. They support Parliament in acting on it, and that's why I think it's entirely appropriate that this committee approach this issue with the urgency it deserves.

For some 15 years, this country has had its name signed to an international treaty that we have simply not fulfilled, and I think that's unacceptable. I heard another member mention that funds could be wiped out if this bill was passed. I'd suggest that perhaps the member might start his review of the evidence submitted in the last Parliament by looking at evidence provided by the film industry. It showed that more than $1 billion a year is not coming to this country; it is being lost in investment, including in places like Montreal, which has a strong film industry, where we are not attracting that billion dollars. That's thousands of jobs.

Consider the recording industry. We heard from Music Canada, which talked about over $800 million a year going missing. That's coming right out of the pockets of artists, and that's money that's not being invested in this country.

The entertainment software industry talked about thousands and thousands of jobs that are not here right now in places like Montreal and Vancouver, all because we do not have a system that protects the property rights of companies that would otherwise invest in the industry and in the people who own the intellectual property.

For this committee to not approach this bill with the urgency that this situation calls for would be negligent, and it's not something the members on this side of the table are going to support.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

I now have Mr. Lake and Monsieur Dionne Labelle.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll let Mr. Dionne Labelle go first.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Del Mastro talked about a sense of urgency as far as the industry is concerned. While we appreciate that, we also feel a sense of urgency in terms of protecting rights holders from the $126-million loss in royalties the passage of this bill will mean for them.

We are being muzzled, and Canadians need to know it. This kind of attitude in committee is a new development in Canada's parliamentary history. Whether we are talking about the Mulroney or the Chrétien years, legislative committees would agree to multiple amendments to bills. Members would work together. Since this session began, the Conservatives have not agreed to any opposition amendments. The only two amendments that have been accepted pertain to Conservative bills. They were put forward by Conservatives themselves.

I recognize the desire to muzzle us, but I also see that as a sign of arrogance. We are here to clarify rates with respect to the Internet and royalties, as well as to protect the industry and creators. So I think we should take the time to do that.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

I have Mr. Regan and then Mr. Angus.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take Mr. Del Mastro up on his offer. I therefore move that the motion be amended by deleting the word “party” and replacing it with the words “committee member”.

That's my first amendment. I have another one after this is dealt with.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I'll read the motion as amended: That the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Wednesday, March 14, 2012, and that debate be limited to a maximum of five minutes per committee member per clause, and five minutes per committee member per amendment, and that if clause-by-clause consideration...

Is that correct? None of the rest has changed, as it stands. We're on that amendment, and now I'm opening it up for discussion.

I have Mr. Lake on the amendment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think we need to think carefully about what we're talking about here.

We've said there are 15 hours to go clause by clause, and there's a reasonable pace that you want to keep. Fifteen hours is a long time, but you have to keep a reasonable pace if 12 members decide to weigh in on every amendment. If the NDP were to move 400 amendments on clause 2, and every member gets to weigh in on that, I think that's going to really bog things down.

Ultimately, you're getting one five-minute span out of an hour, instead of one five-minute span out of 15 minutes. I don't think that it makes any sense to go down that road, personally, but others may want to weigh in on this.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

On the amendment, I have Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In that case, I would add to my motion to amend, “and that the committee work not cease on Thursday, March 29”.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Just give me a second for clarification.

The first thing we have to do is vote on the amendment as presented. Then we can actually bring forward....

It's not the same thing; it would change the original amendment that you brought forward. We can't just add to it; we have to vote on the first amendment as it stands.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Can I withdraw it and resubmit the full amendment?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

That sounds like a pretty good idea, but I'll just clarify that, okay?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The problem, Mr. Chair, is that the first doesn't work at all. Mr. Del Mastro was in favour of having each member being able to have five minutes in each—I think I'll wait for the Chairman.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Don't let me near the green book. I read all of that information--

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the problem is that you have a motion to allow each member five minutes. Mr. Lake has said that he's concerned that in that case, 15 hours is not going to be enough; I'm just responding to that concern.