Guy Arseneault

House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

His favourite word was broadcasting.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Restigouche—Chaleur (New Brunswick)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We were quite co-operative this morning on the last request by the Reform Party for unanimous consent. But as soon as they got unanimous consent then they started playing tricks with the rules. They wanted to adjourn the debate. I do not know how sincere they really are about this. I would have to say no under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Group No. 5 of the amendments. There are three amendments here, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57.

Bill C-32 introduces a number of exceptions to facilitate access and reduce costs for the benefit of public institutions and persons suffering from perceptual disabilities.

To ensure access for certain types of users of copyright materials, the Copyright Act recognizes certain exceptions for reasons of public interest. The exceptions contained in Bill C-32 respond to the real concerns from certain types of users and, in some cases, the bill stipulates that certain exceptions do not apply where there exists a collective which can negotiate a blanket licence for the use of those works.

The Bloc Quebecois has tabled amendments which would extend this principle to all exceptions. This, in the government's view, would nullify the very exceptions the government has been promising to reintroduce over the past nine years. The government believes that the collective management of rights is a cost effective and efficient means of enhancing access to works.

The government will therefore continue to encourage the collective management of rights but in certain circumstances, such as those that are described in the bill, the government believes that exceptions are required.

With this group of amendments, I think we have to be very straightforward with regard to the tactics that are being used in this House today to debate certain groups. I am going to give an example. Here we have Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of these motions and want them passed. The Reform critic for Canadian heritage has stood up and said they are not ready to support that. The parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage is standing in his place now saying that we are not ready to support it either.

There are some very serious debates that have to be done on Bill C-32, debates that members want to hear, the ephemeral transfer format. Unfortunately they only occur in Group No. 7. It is a very long list of amendments. I am anxious to hear what members have to say about those amendments because I think they go a long way in satisfying the Reform Party and our critics with regard to when the bill was first tabled in the House. That was the biggest concern we heard from the Reform Party with regard to ephemeral transfer format.

We heard other concerns from the Bloc with regard to the creator's side, so we tried to strike a balance. At this point I see no need for Reform members to reiterate over and over again that they are against these three and for government members to reiterate over and over that they are against them. I think we should let Bloc Quebecois members explain again why they are in agreement and convince us that they want to go with this. I would certainly be ready to put the question now.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be on the record on these motions. There are in this grouping three motions, Motions Nos. 6, 44 and 60.

Motion No. 60 is a government motion. Motions Nos. 6 and 60 are both technical amendments. Motion No. 6, is a consequential amendment. It makes a correction to a subsection added to the bill by the committee.

Motion No. 44 by the member for Kootenay East in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona is about used books. It claims that used books could not be imported and things of that nature. I would like to correct that perception.

The bill does not prohibit the importation of used textbooks. Rather, it provides a safeguard should the importation of certain used textbooks become a problem. The amendment made by the standing committee ensures that Canada can continue to maintain control over its own marketplace. It is a very solid safeguard and the concerns of members should be looked after with regard to that amendment.

Motion No. 60 in the name of the government is a consequential amendment, one that all parties will probably accept as well as the other one. It ensures that an amendment made by the committee will not be retroactive to June 30, 1996. I know many members have spoken against retroactivity in the past including members of the Reform Party, Bloc Quebecois and the independent members present. I suggest to them again that it would be wise to support this amendment.

With regard to Motion No. 44, the government will be indicating its decision but personally it is a no vote. We are not in favour of Motion No. 44 because the bill itself guarantees protection and there is a safeguard in there to make sure that our marketplace is not distorted when it comes to used books.

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-32, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing

a) line 29 on page 27 with the following:

"27.1 (1) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), it is an"

b) line 1 on page 28 with the following:

"(2) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), where the"

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 96 the following:

"(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)( d ), paragraph 45(1)( e ) of the Copyright Act, as enacted by section 28 of this Act, shall be read as follows for the period beginning on June 30, 1996 and ending on the day that is sixty days after the day on which this Act is assented to: e ) to import copies, made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where they were made, of any used books.''

We have changed that. We clarified it.

You have already spoken. I have heard that message.

We have clarified those aspects. There is ephemeral. There is transfer of format. I look forward to the support of the Reform Party on the bill rather than delay and delay and delay. The time has come to get on with it. There is other business of the House than Bill C-32 that we must get on with. This is a very important bill. The producers, the creators and the users have been waiting for the bill.

What damage are we doing to the relationship between the creators and the users if we continually say that this is here and that is there and it is not so? It is important to create a good working relationship. Both sides want this clarified now, right away.

That is what we are doing. We have put forward the bill. We have our amendments and we are putting them forward today. Let us clarify it and get on with the work of the House so that the creators and the users can get on with their business as well.

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate to clarify a few points.

There was some concern in the Reform Party with regard to the ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions. That opinion was expressed in committee by a number of members. The government listened to the members, our caucus, the opposition and the witnesses, and they are in the bill. There is an ephemeral exception. There is a transfer of format exception. I take the member at his word. If they are in there he will support them and the process will be speedy. That is why they are there. That is part of the negotiation game.

After the amendments came out of the committee in December there were concerns that perhaps telethons and Santa Claus parades were not protected. We felt they were already in the bill, but the government decided to clarify them even more. The amendments are there.

With regard to whether they got the amendments late and did not get a chance to analyse them, to a certain extent that is fair game but in written form they only had them today.

Last evening I had a chance to indicate to the hon. member that ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions, telethons or whatever were there and that I would be available to meet with him after to explain the amendments.

We are parliamentarians. There should be respect and honour in this place. The bill is before the House. We were fair with the way

in which we handled a situation the Reform Party asked about this morning. We collaborated and we would like to see the same collaboration.

For instance, putting up speakers for the sake of speaking is not a way of collaborating. The hon. member who just spoke is very knowledgeable of the subject. He also spoke when it was first introduced in the House. I appreciate some of the comments he made. It gave me a chance to reflect.

However his comments would have been better placed in Group No. 7 which deals with ephemeral, transfer of format, telethons and radio stations rather than Group No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I do not want to delay things but I have the report stage order from the Table. It says that the question on Motion No. 49 is put if the question on Motion No. 48 is negatived. Motion No. 48 was negatived but Motion No. 49 was not put.

Before we move on to Group No. 2, I would ask that the question on Motion No. 49 be put.

Madam Speaker, we completed the vote on Motion No. 48 already. It was defeated unanimously-