Evidence of meeting #12 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
It was a sculpture, basically, of a flock of geese, so Eaton's decided--
4:55 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
During Christmastime.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
--during Christmastime to tie little red ribbons around the necks as part of a publicity campaign for Eaton's. The creator of these geese in that case was a fellow by the name of Michael Snow, and he objected because he felt that his geese were being used in association with a commercial activity that he didn't necessarily sanction.
He was able to successfully get an order from the court, based on his moral rights, to have these little red ribbons removed from the necks of the geese.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
It is, and normally you cannot assign your moral rights; you can only waive them. That's the reason why I say in principle it's not a right that could call for money; it's more attached to—
4:55 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
It's personally to the actual creator, because the creator can be different from the rights owner, but the moral right is always with the creator.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Understood. Thank you.
I have one more question, a very brief one on cultural exemptions. As we move forward, with perhaps crafting another bill, which would address amendments to the Copyright Act, can you give us a bit of an insight as to what's included under cultural exemptions, what that means? I'm assuming it has to do with protecting our sovereignty or our cultural identity as a nation against the claims of other nations. Is that correct? Could you be more specific as to what kinds of things that would include?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
In fact, it is an exemption you will find in the free trade agreement and in the North American Free Trade Agreement. You don't find this concept in the WTO, nor do we find it in the WCT or the WPPT, for example. The cultural exemption is aiming at preserving Canada's sovereignty with respect to some obligations.
For example, if we were to do something that would fall within the scope...if there was an obligation in the NAFTA that would have had an impact on our cultural industry, for example, it would have been possible for Canada not to implement, not to take action with respect to that obligation, for the very reason that we can rely on the cultural exemption.
In the WPPT and WCT, there was no need to have such an exemption in these treaties because they have been crafted in a way that did not require such an exemption in these treaties. First of all, that exemption does not exist in these treaties, and there was no need to seek or to ask for something like this in these treaties.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Okay, thank you. It's a little fuzzy still, but I'll speak to you privately.
5 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
But that goes well beyond just copyright.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
If I may, as chair, I have two questions, and I hope I can get a short answer.
In Bill C-60, it was suggested that copyright shouldn't be left up to the heritage committee and that there be a “study of the Copyright Act committee” set up between the Ministry of Heritage and Industry. Is something like that still in the works, or was there ever a committee struck?
5 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Sorry to disappoint you, but I cannot answer that question.
5 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
I'm honest.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
The second thing I'd like to ask then is this. Was Bill C-60 one part of copyright that would only fulfil one part of the WIPO? If we had passed Bill C-60, I know there were some things that weren't in there. When we did our study, the “Interim Report on Copyright Reform”, I was of the understanding that this was the first of three parts. If we had passed it, we would not have been in compliance with the WIPO; it would have only been the first step.
5 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Once we have implemented our obligation, the second step will be to decide whether or not we want to ratify the treaties. Ratification is the step where you can become a member of the treaties, so we're at the stage where we're contemplating amendments in order to comply with the treaties. Once our legislation is in line with the treaties, we're going to have to go to the second step, the one dealing with the ratification of the treaties themselves.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
So in essence, if Bill C-60 had passed, or if something like that were to pass, it would only be the first step in the ratification process.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. Thank you.
I must thank both of you for coming today and giving us some insight. I know we have some new members on this committee. There are some people who have been through the copyright mill before. It's very complicated. I was part of the interim report on copyright reform in 2004, and I'm quite sure there are things that have changed even from then until now.
So thank you again for enlightening us today, with some apprehension, on what's here. We look forward to seeing you again in another couple of meetings.
Let's take a recess for a few minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you for returning.
First of all, I'd like to go over the agenda from now until October. Everyone has the calendar.
On Wednesday the 27th, as I explained earlier, CBC will be here from 3:30 until 6. Again, I might have to have one of my vice-chairs do part of that meeting for me.
On Monday the 2nd, we have another copyright briefing. If you can get the fog out of your mind about some of the things we've just heard, check Bill C-60 and you'll notice there were certain parts of Bill C-60 that weren't clear and still weren't answered. Do scan through at least the recommendations this committee put forward in the May 2004 report. I think those would be important, so we can question where we might be going with copyright and some of the bills.
On Wednesday the 4th we're talking about some museum studies. Everyone has that and objectives of this study and stuff. Let's go over some of that in the next little while and be ready for that particular study that day.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, under the lead page from our friend Mr. Scarpaleggia, there's the “Issues and Challenges With Small Museums in Canada”. Who is the author of this document? Is this something created by the minister?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay. I'm glad I asked the question, then, and I'll tell you why.
I think as far as it goes, it's fine, but I believe the real question that has to be answered is what criteria should the federal government establish--and here I mean any federal government, whether it be ours or not--in terms of federal responsibility for the funding that would go to small museums? This information on small museums in Canada--the overview, the introduction, the issues and challenges, and so on and so forth--is all very interesting, but at the end of the day, if we have not defined what the criteria should be for the federal government....
If I may, I just want to be completely clear so that my friends understand. To me this is not a partisan question; this is a question of jurisdiction. If we are talking about something that has a real interest to Ed Fast and his constituents in Abbotsford, and there is a strong local flavour, is there a federal responsibility to Mr. Fast's constituents or not? Is there a national concern, a national connection? Clearly, in the case of railways, I think there is. I think that case can be made. But even with railways there are sub-concerns.
So I would suggest that what we need from our researchers is a more concise way to say what I'm expressing right now, establishing criteria, or a recommendation on criteria, for the federal government to determine federal responsibility. It's not a jurisdictional question as much as it is a question on what is the rationale for there to be a federal contribution to a museum.