Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It would not necessarily have to be an official member of a whip's office, but rather a member designated by the party. I believe that is the usual wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Madame Lavallée is moving that. Is there any discussion? All in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move along to number 10: “Questioning of witnesses”.

Mr. Angus.

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

I'm going blind here based on...I'm not exactly sure about our witness list, but I believe that if we're going to keep up our level of production, we're probably going to need to have one-hour sessions. I think this is a fair set-up. I think seven minutes, as I said earlier, where we actually have to get a lot of technical details down, is going to give us a much better opportunity than five minutes in an initial round. I would accept this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The difficulty, however, presented by that—and I hate to disagree with my cousin—is that 10 minutes for witnesses, followed, then, by seven, seven, and seven may leave us with very little time on one-hour rounds. I wonder if the committee could first make a decision on its own as to how long these sessions should be: 60 minutes, 90 minutes, or two hours, although I've not heard of many being two hours. But I think that would certainly change and get a better illustration of how we're going to share the time in terms of questioning.

Also, I, for one, believe that 10 minutes for opening statements by witnesses may be too long. I think it should be reduced to no more than seven minutes, and probably more like five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Before we move to Mr. Lake and Mr. Del Mastro, maybe we could hear from Madam Clerk about how many people she has heard from who would like to make presentations. That might give the committee a better sense of where we're going.

[The Clerk]

You have all received in your package of information a list entitled “Potential Participants (Wish to appear)”.

In this list, you will see that there are approximately 35 or so groups that have contacted the clerk's office to request that they appear. This is up to the committee for its consideration, no more and no less.

In terms of “Questioning of witnesses”, the only thing I would highlight for the committee is to keep in mind that if there are one-hour panels and 10 minutes for presentations, we can simply do the math to account for how many rounds of questions there would be.

The other thing I would highlight is that in the routine motion you have before you, “Questioning of witnesses”, it does say on the first line “That, at the discretion of the chair, witnesses be given then (10) minutes...”. So if the committee wanted to have more witnesses for one meeting, as opposed to fewer, the committee may be willing to let the chair have the discretion to judge whether or not witnesses should have five, seven, or ten minutes depending on the weight of the panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Lake.

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

You have to think of these things all together, right? It all depends on how long the meetings are and how many witnesses there are, as the clerk was just mentioning. We have a significant number of witnesses to hear from. We've all heard from many of these witnesses already. They have asked for meetings. They've submitted documents. They'll submit documents at the hearings themselves.

I suggest that, number one, we limit opening statements to five minutes. I don't think we need to have ten-minute opening statements from every single witness. We could encourage them to submit information further to that.

My second suggestion would be that we hold 90-minute meetings, which would allow us to have ample time for questioning, and that we consider having five witnesses per meeting. If you do the math on that, you get 25 minutes for the opening statements from five witnesses. I'm amenable to the seven-minute opening round, which would take us to 53 minutes in total, and then we'd get a second round of five minutes per question. We'd be able to properly question witnesses. Those are my thoughts right off the bat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

To support what my colleague has just indicated, I'll fall over, drop dead, and require CPR if anybody who comes before this committee has anything to say that I haven't already heard or that people on all sides of this committee table haven't already heard from the witnesses. I want the opportunity to question them. I think that's more important.

A significant number of witnesses have indicated that they want to speak. I would like the opportunity to bounce some things off all of the groups coming forward. I think questions are more important in this case, because I do think that they've outlined their positions well on this matter. We should have five-minute opening rounds and five witnesses in an hour and a half. Then I'm fine with the way it's set out, with the seven and the five for questions and answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I support moving the opening round of statements down from 10 minutes, because we'll be asking for specifics at that point. I'm not comfortable with having five witnesses in a round of an hour and a half. Looking at our schedule blocks here, I think it's going to be difficult.

I don't know what other people think, but I'm looking at two one-hour rounds with three witnesses. I'm worried about having five witnesses. At a certain point in the committee, we might start to move to five witnesses once we've laid out a lot of the issues. A number of artists who have similar messages might want to speak on the same day, so maybe we can move to five at that point.

I've sat on many committees where we've had five witnesses, and there's always one witness who might have something really important to say but doesn't end up getting asked any questions. Having three will allow us to make sure that we've gone through it. I suggest having three witnesses with five-minute opening statements, with a seven-minute first round of questions, in two one-hour blocks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Okay.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Angus took the words right out of my mouth. This is an extremely important issue for many people. It is also quite complex. I understand that we have already met with people, but there is still a lot to be said. I fail to see how we could hear from five witnesses at the same time. For each question we will ask, the five witnesses will want to answer, thus taking up all of the five or seven minutes at my disposal to ask questions.

Therefore, I support the proposal that provides for two two-hour meetings split into one-hour blocks, with a maximum of three witnesses, depending on the circumstances. There would be a first round of seven minutes followed by rounds of five minutes, in addition to the five minutes allotted to witnesses for their opening remarks, all of which would allow us to ask more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Ms. Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I quite agree with what my colleague Pablo has just said.

The idea behind that is that we want to do serious work and have the time to listen to what witnesses have to tell us in public. I know that we have all done our homework and met with many people in our offices, but those people have to be able to state publicly what they told us. Our questions and their answers need to be given in public.

There will also be groups that we have not yet heard from that will present briefs; we have to have time to read them. As for holding two two-hour meetings a week, it is indeed a good idea to split those meetings into two one-hour periods and not hear from more than three witnesses at a time. If not, things will become incomprehensible.

Mr. Chair, Madam Clerk, it is important that the witnesses who will appear come from the same sector or have a common interest, which would allow our questions and their answers to be more in-depth. This is not only about getting them to say publicly what they told us in private, this is about doing serious work so that we can receive explanations and properly understand such a complex bill, which contains a lot of ramifications, in order to then take an informed decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Merci.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the comments of my colleagues Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Lavallée and Mr. Angus, i.e., holding two two-hour meetings a week, with each meeting split into two one-hour periods during which we will hear from a maximum of three witnesses.

We have been waiting a very long time to deal with this bill, which is extremely important and complex. We cannot simply rubber stamp the legislation. We have to do things properly and take the time to listen. Hearing from three witnesses at once is already quite complex, because they will probably be covering a number of components of the bill.

I also support the proposal that they receive five minutes for their opening remarks. There should be a first round of questions of seven minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Okay. We'll hear from Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Lake and then I think we should get to the specifics in terms of the minutes.

We'll get to the number of meetings when we deal with the actual work plan, but right now I'm trying to get us through the question of the number of minutes for witnesses to speak. Does it remain at the discretion of the chair or is it going to be locked in stone? There is also the matter of the number of minutes for questioning.

We'll hear from Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I do think it's germane. We need to deal with the issue that's currently on the floor, or that has been mentioned by members of the opposition, with respect to the number of times this committee is going to meet. It's very difficult for me to agree to how many witnesses we're going to have in an hour, or how much they're going to speak, or how much people are going to question, when, frankly, it sounds like the urgency being placed on moving this bill forward doesn't seem to be apparent.

I'm really concerned about that. We have artists who aren't being paid for their work that's being copied in Canada, at a rate that eclipses that of any other country. We have software companies that are not protected in Canada right now. We have the number two video game industry in the world, and it's not adequately protected, and they're telling us that. We have the Chamber of Commerce, which has long been lobbying to get this done. And I have people who want to meet for four hours a week? This is not acceptable.

It's not acceptable. We need to meet a lot more than that, and there is ample precedent for special legislative committees. Since 2006, since we've been government, and since I've been here, they have worked intensive schedules.

I think it's a pipe dream over there to think that it's responsible to meet four hours a week on this. I would personally propose that we meet for three hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the morning. We could look at shutting down the heritage committee in the afternoons on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That would give us at least another two hours. We could look at a Wednesday afternoon schedule as well.

We've all talked to these witnesses. We all understand this bill. I understand that it's a complex bill, but the members who have been put on this committee are here because they already have an understanding of it. It is important--it is imperative--that we move this bill forward, not only for the good of the Canadian economy and Canadian artists, but also for our international relations. I hope that people on the opposite side of the bench are going to take this seriously and undertake due diligence to get this bill moved forward and through this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Lake is up next. What I'm trying to get us to right now is to deal specifically with the number of minutes that witnesses are going to have and how many minutes each questioner is going to have, so I'd prefer to move the work plan to the next stage. Unless the committee sees it differently, if members could stick to that at this point, I think we could move it along faster.

I have a growing list of those who wish to speak. I think they want to address the work plan. I'm at the will of the committee, but I think we could move this faster by doing it that way.

Mr. Lake.

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

I'll touch on the work plan a little bit, but again, you have to take it all together. It doesn't even sound like a work plan. At four hours a week, it sounds like the opposition parties are on Christmas vacation already.

Quite honestly, when we dealt with the auto sector study in our committee, we sat until 11 o'clock at night, I think, every night, night after night. We were able to get our work done. We were able to hear from witnesses and come up with a good report from that.

It seems to me that there is, as my colleague said, an urgency in regard to getting this passed. We're in a minority Parliament. We don't know what's going to happen with the opposition parties come February, depending on where the polls are or whatever might happen. We have to get legislation passed here. We can't come to another election without passing some legislation on copyright. It's too important. We have pages and pages of quotes from virtually every organization, from every creator group, saying that we need legislation here in Canada. We can't take a chance on this legislation not passing.

Quite honestly, I'm astounded we're talking about four hours a week for studying this. We struck a special legislative committee. I can't remember a legislative committee that met for four hours a week. I know that there's even been talk of cancelling heritage committee meetings, and maybe industry committee meetings, so that people won't even be working any more than they would have previously.

My suggestion is that we meet for 16 to 20 hours a week and hear from witnesses. I have no problem clearing my schedule in the evening. That's what I'm here to do; I'm here to work. I have no problem with that. There are many, many witnesses who want to be heard on this, and I think we have to hear them. I think we have to work through this in a systematic way. I don't want to rush through it, but surely over the course of three weeks of intensive hearings of witnesses, we as a committee can hear enough to move through this legislation.

I would hope that for most members of the committee, this isn't the first time they've looked at the legislation. I would assume that you're on this committee because you have an interest in this. I would assume that over the last several years you've been looking at this information and meeting with people. It's incumbent on us, it's our job, to actually get this legislation through committee. It's our job to give it a good study, a thorough study, and hear from as many witnesses as we can. But you know what? We have to roll up our sleeves here. Again, four hours a week...I can't even believe what I'm hearing.

In regard to the rounds of questions, we can talk about them. I think that as we move through this, if we schedule enough time to hear from people, we can do hour-and-a-half meetings. We can do three-hour blocks, so that we'll have two meetings of an hour and a half, back to back. That gives us the opportunity to hear from 10 witnesses over the course of three hours.

We must have sufficient time to actually question the witnesses. If we have a 90-minute meeting, we will get sufficient time to actually ask a substantial number of questions. Obviously, as with any committee, we'll choose the witnesses we want to question. We'll encourage witnesses to submit their documents to outline their positions even further, including any amendments they want to put forward.

Again, I urge the committee to take this really seriously. We need to work our way through this and get it through. This legislation has died time and time again because of elections. We need to actually pass something this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think it going to be very important, if we're going to continue to move forward, that we speak to each other with the recognition that we all take this very seriously. If in the first 40 minutes we are going to be accusing each other of being irresponsible and going on vacation, to me that is not very helpful.

I think what we're dealing with here us that we've waited five years for this legislation. We've talked to many, many, many groups. And we are going to do this right.

If they want to use their time to accuse us of trying to obstruct, they can, but I think it will end up with us putting on the record what we're hearing from artists' groups and what we're hearing from consumers, and then they can, and then we end up wasting a lot of time.

So if we go back to the original issue, which is our witness list and our times, I would suggest that I'm amenable to having three witnesses at a time. I see two blocks per week. I'm not willing to shut down the heritage committee, because there are other studies being undertaken at the same time. We can do this. It will take the time that's necessary.

It's not up to me to decide when the government is going to pull the plug and call an election; it's up to them. So if they have copyright and they want to get it through, then we'll get copyright through, but this might take us a number of months. If it does, it will be a well-deserved bill. But if they think they're going to get this done with a rubber stamp, I don't see that happening. So I'd say, let's look at the realities here and let's just move on.