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

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I want to express my support for my colleague's amendment. As far as our practical planning goes, I feel that the technical considerations that define the way we do things, the amount of time we take, and the days and times we meet, are all very important and relevant.

Here we are, talking about wrapping up committee work, doing our jobs as parliamentarians, boiling the House of Commons down to a single committee whose creation every party agreed to for the purpose of producing a result. I would say that, in this situation, we can trust one another as adults. We're all old enough to look after ourselves. We can all agree that we won't waste taxpayer money ridiculously by putting our work on hold and talking about this indefinitely.

On the contrary, I think we can give ourselves a mandate of coming to a conclusion in due course. To that end, I think it would behoove us not to tie ourselves down to the 9 a.m., March 29th deadline. The way I see it, we have a duty to our constituents to get to the bottom of the matter. We all have that mandate. If 9 a.m. on March 29th rolls around and we have not completed our work, everyone will want to come to a swift conclusion.

We all want to do right by Canadians. We all want to feel that we have made the right decision. I would prefer if we didn't have a gun to our heads simply because we have to rush the job. We could very well botch things up. If we aren't able to agree on all the amendments, we will end up with a slew of amendments that have been tossed aside.

That is why I think this is an excellent idea.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Next is Mr. Cash, but my watch says 5:30, and this meeting was to end at 5:30. According to the clerk, we can extend the meeting. There doesn't need to be unanimous consent. It only needs to be a majority vote.

Are we in favour of extending the meeting?

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

Could we get a recorded vote on that, please?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

We'll have a recorded vote, please, on the extension of the meeting.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 4)

The motion carries, so welcome to 5:31.

Next on the list are Mr. Cash and Mr. Benskin.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

This amendment to the motion speaks to the assumption that there's going to be goodwill on this committee. Clearly if we have goodwill, we're going to get through a lot of this a lot quicker. I'd really urge us all to consider that.

If we're going to lay down a closure motion, it does put a gun to the head of the committee, and consequently it sows some seeds of bad blood. I really think we all want to actually do the same thing here. I really do.

If you want to play games, we'll play them, but I don't think Canadians want us to. I think we all want to get to the same point here. A closure motion on the committee really sets a bad symbol for this committee, so I'd urge us all to support this.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Cash.

Go ahead, Mr. Benskin.

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

I'm going to apologize. I'm going to apologize for all the bad things that happened in the last Parliament. They did this; they did that; they did this. I'm sorry for that.

We're here. You've got five people who come from this industry. For 30 years I made my living in this industry. For 10 years I was presenting on that side of the table, looking for amendments and so forth. At no point did anybody I was associated with say we didn't need comprehensive change to the copyright law, and I don't think anybody on this side of the table did either.

We are here to work with you. We are here to make sure that when we walk out of this as a team, we can be proud of the work we've done. It serves Canadians. It serves the industry.

We have an opportunity to do that. If we keep working on the assumption that because they did that, the same thing is going to happen, we're going to be in this situation of you and us. That's not going to serve anybody. It's not going to serve you, it's not going to serve us, and it's certainly not going to serve the people who put us here.

I suggest simply opening it up. Instead of closing it down and saying we'll get rid of whatever we haven't got to, let's just finish it. Let's be able to say we've done the best we can as a group, as a team, and this is what we're with.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Benskin.

I have Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Lake afterwards.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'll pass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I was going to do was move a motion to extend, but you already did it for me, so thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

No problem.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

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

I just want to say that I appreciate Mr. Benskin's comments. In that spirit, thankfully, with what's being proposed, I think we have 45 hours of meetings to work together toward that conclusion.

Certainly if the honourable members of the committee decide we want to meet 16 hours a week or 20 hours a week, we'd be glad to have that conversation to make sure we get the work done that we need to get done. We do look forward to working together with other members of the committee and welcome you to the conversation.

With the 45-hour time frame allotted, hopefully we can accommodate everything we need to accommodate during that time. If need be, certainly as a committee we're well within our means to have a business meeting and decide that we want to add some extra time to that time frame.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Lake. I just want to make sure I understood correctly.

In the event the committee is worried about running out of time, are you suggesting increasing the number of hours per week set aside for this matter, or extending the deadline? Are you suggesting pushing back the schedule or spending more time on the matter on the already allotted days? Are you talking about extending the timeline vertically, so to speak, or horizontally?

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

During the last Parliament, we were restricted by some members of the committee who decided that we were only going to meet four hours a week. We'd be glad to roll up our sleeves and get to work. We've committed to 12 hours right now. If need be, we could meet for 16 hours in a week, or even 20 hours, to make sure that we get this bill passed through the committee by March 29.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I have Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

In response to Mr. Benskin's intervention, I agree with him. I know he comes to us with great sincerity, but I also want to remind him that I served 18 years as an educator, and that copyright involves more than just the entertainment industry and production. It involves many Canadians from many facets and many industries, including teachers, university professors, and education administrators. It has great effect. We need to acknowledge that there are a lot of people affected by copyright, and I'm here to represent the people who sent me here, just as you are.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

M. Dionne Labelle is next.

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

I found the last comment quite interesting. One way to speed things up without imposing a deadline would be for the Conservatives to move their amendments, if they have any, so we can move on to dealing with them. I think that once it comes time to study amendments, one way to ensure we do things properly would be to contribute to the discussion. If the Conservatives adopt the same attitude they have in other committees, and there are no amendments, obviously, the process is going to drag on and on, because we want amendments. We are going to have to find a way to work on this copyright bill for the sake of the public good. Otherwise, you will keep doing what you are already doing. You heard from 130 people, yet you made no changes to the bill. That is unbelievable. Clearly, those people made suggestions and proposed amendments, but they were not taken into account.

Starting the debate based on the premise that it must come to an end on March 29th means that no amendments are expected to go through. What you are doing in the other committees is a disgrace to Canada's democracy. Never has a government operated in this manner. We checked the history books to see how other governments have behaved. In parliamentary committees, the members of the party in power work with the other members to improve legislation. That is not what you are doing here. I wish you would, and I will be here to make sure you do.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

Mr. Nantel, go ahead.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder whether we might consider another work plan. As I recall, there was much talk of that during the discussion surrounding Canada's 150th anniversary. I think it is often reckless to approach work schedules with the idea that you will spend eight weeks on a given matter and then see how it turns out. Speaking of Canada's 150th anniversary, I have long suggested that we spend one meeting a month on the topic for the next five years, with the option of dealing with other subjects in the meantime.

In this case, could we not set a work schedule for the amendments? We would hear from witnesses during our 12 or so meeting hours a week, and we could decide to discuss amendment X or Y. That way, we could extend the deadline. Next week, we would hear from other witnesses.

I will not come up with the methodology. I haven't been an MP for seven years, just seven months. The fact remains, the need is there and so is the good will. Basically, I am wondering whether we could revisit how we extend the period allotted to our amendment debates, rather than always imposing a cut-off date on the whole matter and constantly having to push it back. I find that very restricting.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Members of the committee, I need to suspend for about five minutes. We can all enjoy a five-minute recess and come back after the break.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for the courtesy of the five-minute recess.

I had an email saying there is no vote tonight. According to my email, there won't be a vote.

With that, we'll return to debate. Monsieur Nantel was the last speaker, and now we have Mr. Angus.

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

Can you read the amendment? I have an amendment that we think might clarify things.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

First we have to put this amendment forward and go from there.

Do you want the whole thing as presented, or just the amendment?

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

Yes, please read the whole thing.