Evidence of meeting #10 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.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Mr. Del Mastro, just before the industry experts provide the testimony, if G-5 is adopted, there is a line conflict that would then not allow LIB-11 to proceed.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
So if you want to rephrase the question.... But just so that is out there, if the government amendment passes, LIB-11 can't proceed.
Back to you.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
Could I get the answer to the question, please?
6:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Could we perhaps confer for a quick second on this one?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
6:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Welcome back, once again.
I will now hand it back to our witnesses for an answer.
6:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Thanks very much for that moment.
The bill is silent on the NPVR technology. That's the first thing.
If the question is whether there is anything in the bill that prevents a business-to-business relationship to establish a NPVR model, the answer is no, there isn't.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay. I have been told previously that there's nothing preventing network PVRs from being established. However, my concern goes back to an issue of double payments. What the bill would do right now is to leave BDUs potentially subject to lawsuits over double payments, if these amendments aren't passed. Is that correct?
The BDUs are obviously indicating that they are seeking to establish this. There's no such payment made currently for a PVR, but the idea is that it would be much cheaper, and in fact more efficient, if we moved to a single set-top box that would allow viewers to view programs without having the recording on their own device; it would simply be on a network.
The concern is that without these amendments the BDUs would then be forced to make a double payment on this issue. Can you confirm whether the bill leaves them open to a lawsuit that could see them making a double payment without these amendments?
6:30 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
There's nothing specific in the bill that would suggest there's a double payment. It would depend on the facts of a given case.
To the extent that an entity providing a service is able to benefit from the hosting safe harbour under clause 35, which would be amended by Liberal 11, they would be sheltered from liability for the activities covered by that hosting safe harbour.
So it really would depend on the facts, in terms of the type of service they're providing, the types of acts they're engaging in, and the involvement in terms of the content, etc.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Unfortunately, Mr. Del Mastro, we now have bells. We can do two things. We can vote on the amendment, or we can postpone this for further discussion tomorrow at 9 a.m.
I guess we won't have unanimous consent, so we will move forward with our discussion on Liberal amendment 10 tomorrow morning at 9 a.m., in room 253-D on the Hill.
This meeting is now adjourned until tomorrow.