Bill C-11 Committee on March 12th, 2012

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I appreciate that. I applaud what you're trying to do here and your intent here. The question really is whether it is possible that a court could interpret this to mean that it's for the individual only. I don't see why that's not possible, but I'd like your answer on that. As opposed to the individual and his spouse, the individual and the neighbours who come over to visit, why is it not possible that a court could interpret this to mean the individual only?

[Drew Olsen, Director, Policy and Legislation, Copyright and International Trade Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

I believe that if the recording was shown in an individual's household, that would not be a performance in public, which would not be an infringement of copyright. For a performance in public, if the person who made the recording were there, that would be fine within this amendment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan. You still have approximately two and a half minutes.

Is there any further discussion on government amendment 3?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Now we will move on to Mr. Regan's amendment, Liberal amendment 1. Mr. Regan, you're moving it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The present provision would provide that in the case of the use of a PVR, for example, and someone doing time-shifting, they can't give away the recording. This would further strengthen it, in my view, by saying that they cannot sell, distribute, rent out, or give away the recording. I'm a little surprised that it's not already in the bill, but I think it would strengthen the provision.

I move it for the consideration of the committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Regan's amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Regan, we'll go once again to you, sir, for Liberal amendment number 2. Will you be moving that?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This would replace the phrase “work or other subject-matter” with the word “program”, which I think provides greater clarity. You'll see that the next two amendments I'm going to propose would have the same effect. In fact, the third of those would provide a definition for “program”.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Just for clarification, Mr. Regan, amendment LIB-2 would say that Bill C-11, in clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 20 with the following:

“broadcast” means any transmission of a program by telecommunication

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's correct.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Okay. We have that amendment moved.

Mr. Lake, so the Conservatives....

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

It probably shouldn't take five minutes, but I'll be dealing with Liberal amendments 2, 3, and 4 because they kind of work together, I believe. Maybe I'll ask the officials what effect they would actually have on the bill.

[Robert DuPelle]

In terms of making clarifications with respect to program, the way the provision operates and the intent of the provision is not necessarily to be limited to a specific program. It could include works within the program.

I expect these changes would modify that in terms of changing or altering the scope of the provision.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, I note that the third amendment I'm going to propose would provide that “program” means sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, containing more than one work or other subject matter. You have that phrase captured there, but it's a broader, clearer term in my view.

It ensures you capture the various possibilities. I'll read it again:

“program” means sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, containing more than one work or other subject-matter.

We're not on this, but obviously in terms of interpreting what—

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Mr. Regan, before we can carry forward, there is a discussion on moving Liberal amendments 2, 3, and 4 together. I would need unanimous consent from the committee to do so. If that has the unanimous consent of the committee, we can have the discussion of all of those. If not, we stick to just your current moved amendment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's what I'm doing, Mr. Chair.

On a point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If we're talking about what “program” means, then it's relevant to consider what it would mean in the context I'm talking about. In that regard, you can't look at the word “program” without considering what I'm proposing it would mean.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I just needed to clarify. Thank you.

We're still on motion 2, and you're talking about the word “program” in your amendment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I guess the question is—I think I answered it, but with what I heard from the officials, I'd like to hear if they still hold the position.

Also, they have the option to move it, I suppose, without the Prime Minister saying so.

[Anne-Marie Monteith]

I'll take a minute just to—

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Sure. We will suspend for a minute for discussion.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Are we ready to go?

Mr. Regan, through you, I'll assume the question is still there and hand it back to our witnesses to provide you with the answer.

[Robert DuPelle]

The use of the term “program” in the provision is intended to be flexible. It's not defined, and to provide a definition could alter the meaning, or it could at least define those parameters, thereby changing the nature of the provision.

In that sense, it would be a question of policy.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I guess it's hard for me to see what's not captured by defining, as we're talking about here, the word “program” by saying it means sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, containing more than one work or their subject matter, unless we're assuming there are going to be smells, touches, and so forth.

I don't think that's what we're talking about here.