Evidence of meeting #5 for Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Might it not be better to leave, if we are going to do so, say, five minutes beforehand? It's just down the hall. I don't think we need 15 minutes. I mean no offence, but it's five minutes, and then we'll come back.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
Okay, we will continue. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez, you have the floor.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
The people from the Barreau du Québec said that Bill C-32 was not...
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Excuse me, but my colleague reminded me that the whips, if they believe that everyone is present in the House, can move things forward and start before the half hour in question is up. It is therefore not a good idea to go on in this way, up until the very last minute.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chairman, we heard the bell announcing a vote to be held. Why do we not close our books and come back right after the vote? I believe that that would be the most reasonable thing to do.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
We've already asked for unanimous consent. We got 15 minutes and there was a general consensus for 20, so let's go for 15 minutes from now.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
But we do not have unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
We did get unanimous consent for 15 minutes so we'll continue until 4:15 p.m. Members can go if they wish, but we did get unanimous consent for 15 minutes.
Continue, Mr. Rodriguez.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
The people from the Barreau du Québec said that Bill C-32 is not consistent with international standards. Do you agree with them?
3:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Absolutely not. When you take a look at some of the provisions with respect to fair dealing or with respect to digital locks or whatever, it's clear the bill has been vetted by those who recognize what the standards are in international law, and I believe the law is compliant as currently drafted. That doesn't mean I don't want to see changes, but I think it's compliant in the way it's drafted.
4 p.m.
Professor of Intellectual Property, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I can see the sentiment animating the comment. Perhaps if we go back to a three-step test and the creators' rights, if we look at the fair dealing provision and maybe the UGC provision, then it may contradict international law.
4 p.m.
Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, Co-Chair of Technology Law Group, As an Individual
In my view, several provisions would not comply with a three-step test. In my view, education, as currently drafted, is not a special case. It would affect the market and it would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the authors. The UGC provision as well is not a special case. It applies very extensively. It would undermine the market and it would have unreasonable prejudice.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
So this should be debated because it's not clear if some sections comply or not.
Do I have any time left?
