But that's not communicating.
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.
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.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Mr. Simms, complete your question, because you're already over time here and Mr. Kotto is frantically waiting to get to a question.
4:40 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
I would say in conclusion that like any other business, authors have various products to offer. It might be music that will be reproduced by the users, licences granted for public performance, public communication, adaptation and so forth. Many rights are recognized under the Copyright Act.
As soon as utilization involves one of the rights provided for under the Act, the authors are entitled to be paid. This is comparable to any business that has several products to offer. Regardless of the product used or purchased, there is a price to be paid. That is what the Act provides for currently.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to congratulate you once again for the few months you have been chairing this committee. It's a pleasure to work with you.
Good afternoon and thank you for being with us.
Indeed, this whole issue dragged on in the last Parliament. The presentation you've made before us is still very enlightening, even though we dealt with this issue for a long time. Some details that we haven't paid attention to are thus resurfacing.
On December 20, 1996, Canada signed two copyright treaties in order to comply with the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization. That was 10 years ago, and we are far from having achieved our objectives.
I'm asking the following question so that all members of the committee can be aware of this. Who is most penalized by the fact that we are not respecting the objectives of the WIPO?
4:45 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Our Copyright Act, as currently worded, does apply to the digital context. When my colleague Albert reviewed economic rights, he mentioned on several occasions that economic rights that are provided for under the Copyright Act do apply to the digital context.
Clearly, several cultural industries feel that additional legislative efforts must be made in order to allow them to profit fully from their creations. In this context, the film industry, the sound recording industry and the software industry—to name but a few—are demanding amendments to the Copyright Act. Many associations also think that it would be appropriate to amend the Copyright Act so that they can work in a more secure and clear context in terms of their business model or in order to benefit fully from their creations.
Others are also demanding that the legislation be updated. Service providers, for example, now that works are circulating on their networks, are wondering what their role is and their responsibility in this context and they would like these issues to be examined.
The education, research and library sector would also like us to address the increasingly frequent usage of contemporary digital works and they would like to see amendments to the act in order to facilitate their work.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
You undoubtedly know that Bill C-60 died on the Order Paper. Given the work that was already done, what was the reaction to that, both positive and negative?
4:45 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
People who have an interest in copyright issues are generally not timid. At the time Bill C-60 was tabled and thereafter, several pressure groups expressed their agreement or disagreement in this regard. Reactions were sometimes positive, sometimes negative. We heard all kinds of opinions about this bill.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Given these reactions—which I had gotten wind of but I wanted to confirm this—is it safe to assume that regardless of the outcome of any new bill, we won't necessarily reach a consensus and we could end up in hot water?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
I am working on this and I would be so pleased to find the ideal consensus on the upcoming amendments. However, you're right, this is an issue that affects a lot of people. Like or not, it's a no-win situation. As soon as you grant one person a right, someone else will have to pay. When the government decides to make an exception, someone will be deprived of money that he or she would have gotten or never had but was hoping to obtain some day. This is an issue where the causal link is very direct.
Because of the very large number of people affected by this and the fact that granting a right has a direct impact on people, we can't please everyone. We've always tried to reach a consensus or get as close to one as possible, but this is a file which, up until now, has rarely led to any kind of consensus. It's a very difficult one.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you, Mr. Kotto.
Just before we ask Mr. Fast to ask questions, I might have been a little premature in saying that we were going to close the questioning at five o'clock. I think it will be 5:15, if we can. I think we can get the rest of our business done, and then we can carry on for that time. Is everyone in agreement with that?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We can question to 5:15, because I know Mr. Scarpaleggia had a question or two earlier, and maybe he'd like to get them in.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, you're fine.
Maybe, then, we'll take just one more question.
Mr. Fast.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us this afternoon.
For the most part, you've given us an overview of the current state of the law in Canada. As I understand it, Bill C-60, as it was originally formulated, was intended to move us in the direction of compliance with a number of the treaties that Canada has signed on to. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Where are you in that work? I'm assuming that this is just a prelude to us actually dealing with either a new act or a substantial amendment of the current Copyright Act. Where are we in that process?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
I think it's fair to say that these issues are still alive, but at this point there has been no decision as to how and when we're going to move on this file. That's all I can say at this point.
No decision has been taken with respect to the content of the package or with respect to the timeframe of the package. For the time being, I know my minister has said she would like to move on this file. I know that at one point she said she would like to move as quickly as she can, but that's all I can say at this point.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Just to follow that up, Bill C-60 received some criticism as well. Many felt that there were certain aspects of it that either weren't broad enough or didn't deal with issues that are currently on our technological table. Reform and statutory damages was one, and digital libraries, crown corporations--there is a whole list of these items.
I'm hoping the next iteration of this bill will actually come forward with something that's going to be a substantive step forward in bringing us into compliance with some of those treaties.
Having heard your presentation, I think most of us at this table still probably don't understand the difference between economic rights and moral rights. I'm still confused. Could you be a little bit more explicit as to the differences between those two?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Copyright Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
In principle, moral rights have no money value. Moral rights have to do with the right to be associated with a work, the right to prevent others from changing or altering your work, or the right to be associated with your right.
I gave the example of the white geese at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, where an author has designed a white goose....
4:55 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
I thought they were Canada geese.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Suffice it to say that they had ribbons on them at Christmas, right?
