Evidence of meeting #11 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert DuPelle  Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Mike MacPherson  Procedural Clerk
Anne-Marie Monteith  Director, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Gerard Peets  Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Drew Olsen  Director, Policy and Legislation, Copyright and International Trade Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Mr. DuPelle.

9:45 a.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Robert DuPelle

Can we take a moment?

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

You sure can.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

They may want to see it.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

We will suspend for a few minutes.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

You've had a few minutes, so I'll hand the floor over to you now, Mr. DuPelle.

9:50 a.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Robert DuPelle

I am going to briefly describe the conditions that are already in place in the amendment.

The exception provides that the individual may use the photograph for private or non-commercial purposes. The photograph in question would need to be one that was commissioned by the individual for personal purposes. The exception applies unless the individual and the owner of copyright in the photograph or portrait have agreed otherwise. Those are the existing conditions.

The proposed changes to this amendment do raise new concepts, such as potential market effect. Because of that, they could modify the scope of the exception, and that would have to be taken into consideration.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Thank you, Mr. DuPelle.

I'm going back to you, Mr. Regan.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So I've moved the motion and....

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Regan.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Mr. Benskin.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

I'm sorry to harp on this, but I'm still really unclear, and the industry has expressed that they themselves are unclear. First, I've checked with my staff, and we've triple-checked the document, and nowhere else does “personal purpose” show up in the document. Again, because it's the only place that it does show up, it creates in society at large a sense of ambiguity or lack of clarity as to what that means. Quite honestly, I'm wondering if it's a drafting error or if a very specific term was employed and why here and nowhere else.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Mr. Peets.

March 13th, 2012 / 9:50 a.m.

Gerard Peets Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we are discussing the previous amendment or the current one.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

The term “personal use” is used in this current amendment as well, is it not?

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Just one second, please, Mr. Benskin.

Mr. Peets, it does appear in relation to Mr. Regan's amendment, so the question is something that Mr. Benskin brought forward.

If you need a minute or so.... Okay, perfect, back to you, Mr. Peets.

9:50 a.m.

Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Gerard Peets

I could reiterate what Rob just mentioned. We can't confirm, but we can take your word for it that it doesn't appear elsewhere in the act. There is a difference between “personal”, on the one hand, and “private” or “non-commercial”, on the other. One place where that would definitely be apparent is the concept of “non-commercial” would appear to be much broader than the concept of “personal”. And it's “private” or “non-commercial”. So switching the words would have the effect of broadening the exception.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Do you have any further comment, Mr. Benskin?

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

No.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

Okay, I'll go to Mr. Regan.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

It's my understanding—and I'd like to hear from the officials on this—that the wording you've proposed in this amendment is the wording used in the bill in relation to user-generated content. I wonder if that's accurate, and if you can explain why it would be helpful to have it there, but not here.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

I'll refer this question to the officials, Mr. Peets or Mr. DuPelle.

9:55 a.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Robert DuPelle

Could we take a moment to compare the language?

9:55 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

That's not a problem. You'll have a minute or two to do so.

I'll suspend.

9:58 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault

All right, Mr. DuPelle, you've had a few minutes to review, and I'll hand the floor back to you.

9:58 a.m.

Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry

Robert DuPelle

We've just confirmed that the language is similar to the language that is used in the user-generated-content provision under clause 22. The user-generated-content provision, like other provisions in the bill, has specific conditions, which were prepared given the context of that specific exception. In terms of this clause we're talking about now, to make the proposed changes would add new concepts that are not part of the current amendment. Because of that, it could alter the scope of the amendment.