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

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Okay.

For clarification, we have an amendment to what Mr. Lake was talking about: “and that they can appear again before the committee.” That will be added at the end, after the word “addenda”. We would add that in there.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

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

I just want to get some clarification. Could the clerk remind us, going back to Bill C-32, how many meetings we had on Bill C-32? How many witnesses appeared before C-32? Could you remind us what the timeframe was in studying Bill C-32?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Of course, we have a great clerk who has many things, but we'll need to get that information for you in a few minutes.

We'll continue the discussion. I'll open that up to Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to vote against the amendment, because having sat in on the previous meetings on Bill C-32, I can say that the evidence is still, in my view, very relevant. It is recent, and frankly, it's evidence provided on this exact bill, so there's no reason we need to hear from witnesses a second time around on this bill. There's an old saying that nothing is new under the sun, and nothing has changed since they provided this testimony.

There are those who will disagree with the bill and there are those who are patiently awaiting this Parliament, this government, and each and every one of us to adhere to the obligations that we committed to under a previous government in 1997 to ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

We can either stay true to our word, ratify those obligations and move forward, or we can continue to delay and frustrate those who are counting on us to act responsibly. I would be entirely opposed to hearing witnesses a second time. I think it's entirely appropriate to allow them, if they've had subsequent thoughts, to be able to submit those to the committee for its consideration, but this is the same bill and their testimony is recent.

Next week is a break week. I would encourage any members of this committee who did not sit on the Bill C-32 committee to use that time as an opportunity to review the materials we received and to acquaint themselves with that information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

I have Mr. Dionne Labelle, Mr. Angus, and then Mr. Cash.

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

In reading the bill, it becomes clear that a number of statements made by witnesses before the committee charged with studying Bill C-32 were not taken into account. As soon as this bill is passed, rights holders will lose $126 million. Certain messages did not get through, and I think the Conservatives would do well to hear them again.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Monsieur Labelle.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I sat on the last committee, and we had many witnesses. I don't know how many witnesses are left.

What I'm concerned about in the work of our committee is our ability to ensure a fair hearing. If we just take the people who weren't heard as our only witness list now, we might not actually have the totally balanced view that we had before, because many of the main players have already spoken.

This is a new Parliament. The historical record of this bill will reflect only the people we cross-examine now, as new parliamentarians.

I'm looking around the room, and I see many people who have not sat on this committee before. I would not like to tie the hands of this committee in deciding how we set about our business, which is to sit down, submit a witness list, go through that witness list, and decide what we need to hear, when we need to hear it, and how we need to hear it, so that we ensure that we actually have a good balance, because we have to represent fairly the issues of the artists and their royalties. We have to hear from the education community, as there's an effect on students and consumers, and there's an effect on industry.

Many of those viewpoints were heard in a previous Parliament by previous parliamentarians, but I would prefer to make sure that our witness list reflects who we need to hear from. I think we can do that in a reasonable manner. This isn't about filling up a list that goes on forever, but I think we'd be better off and more balanced making those choices. Some might be new, and some might have spoken before, but if they're representing major arts organizations, I don't see how I can go back to them and tell them that because they gave their evidence, they're not going to be heard. I think that's going to send a bad message, particularly in the arts community, and we're very concerned about that.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Right before I get to you, Mr. Cash, to answer Mr. Lake's question, we were able to come up with roughly 20 meetings, 75 witnesses and organizations, including ministers and departments, with a total of about 30 hours. I just want to clarify that's roughly what we were able to come up with.

Go ahead, Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

No doubt we'll build on that body of evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the bill is the same as the last one, the context that it's being introduced in is slightly different, and many stakeholders have new concerns they want to bring up. It's the job of this committee to hear those concerns.

I think we'd be missing a lot if this committee tied its hands in the way the members opposite are suggesting.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Cash.

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago we heard the argument that every member should have a chance to ask questions. Now we're hearing an argument that every member shouldn't have a chance to ask questions of the witnesses who appeared previously, even though they have lots of knowledge and an interest in what's happening. They're clearly stakeholders, but the government doesn't want to allow us to ask questions of them. These two statements, these two positions, seem to me to be incongruous and nonsensical.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I have Mr. McColeman and then Mr. Del Mastro.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

As a new member, I totally disagree with the premise of the last comment, because I have the ability to review all the testimony from the witnesses, and it's also been put forward as a motion that they can supply additional information because of the changed context. I can review that information when they submit it. As a new member of the committee who was not part of that earlier discussion, I feel all of that can be in the context of this new discussion with other people who will appear as witnesses, so I am not feeling handicapped in any way.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the last Parliament we had three Liberal members on the Bill C-32 committee. I believe that Mr. Rodrigues, Mr. McTeague, and Mr. Garneau were the regular members of that committee. I think if Mr. Regan reviews the materials, he'll find that they asked a number of questions that I believe represented the Liberal position on copyright.

I'd also suggest to him that all of the groups that appeared will contact him, if they haven't already done so. They're pretty active on the Hill right now in putting forward their positions. If he has any questions that he doesn't feel were asked by the three or four Liberal members at that time, he could certainly ask them in person.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

I’ll have Mr. Benskin speak, and then Mr. Regan.

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

As a comment on what Mr. McColeman said, yes, we may be able to review the testimony and so forth, but we can't ask questions. If something wasn't asked that strikes us from that old testimony or if anything is added to the previous testimony in the addenda, the opportunity ask a specific question that wasn't already asked is not there when we're just reading the testimony.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Benskin.

Go ahead, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Benskin, I have more faith in McColeman's imagination and curiosity and his ability to come up with questions different from those that were previously asked than he does, apparently.

The other thing that's important is that not only would I want other members to hear the answers to my questions as part of how the discussion ought to work, but also I would want to hear the answers to their questions--that is, not just in their office in a private discussion, but here before the committee. That's how this should work. If we're going to have a good understanding of what this bill is going to do and what provisions we ought to try to change and what the arguments are, then we ought to have those discussions here.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Would the members be interested in hearing the amendment again? Are we okay?

The amendment is in conjunction with what Mr. Lake had read. It adds, “and that they can appear again before the committee”.

Would you like to hear the whole thing, or is everyone good that way? I see we're okay.

All in favour--

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I'll allow the recorded vote. I didn't come with my final decision on that.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5)

We are now back to discussion on the original motion presented by Mr. Lake.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

I'll turn to you, Mr. Lake.

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

Sure.

I move that the list of witnesses be determined by a vote of the committee at a committee business meeting to be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 16, 2012.

I'll comment on that motion.

Certainly we can have conversations as time goes on if we want to add additional witnesses. By no means do I intend this to be the final witness list, but it will give us a good opportunity to give the chair and the clerk some direction in terms of inviting witnesses as we go into the break week and prepare for committee meetings to start on the Monday.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Could you just repeat that for the sake of the committee?