Evidence of meeting #66 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was athletes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I sense agreement of the committee.
Do you want to address this, Ms. Bincoletto?
June 5th, 2007 / 10:35 a.m.
Susan Bincoletto Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before there's a decision made on this, I wanted to clarify in terms of the scope of your proposed amendment. I understand that what you want to do is to clarify that electronic media is part of publication. Is that correct?
10:35 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
That's right.
We were thinking that perhaps a better way of expressing this could be something like Olympic Games or Paralympic Games.... Sorry, I just need a few minutes.
The provision starts:
(5) For greater certainty, the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a translation of it in any language in the publication or broadcasting of a news report relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games,
“including by means of electronic media.” Is what you're trying to capture here that publication or broadcasting encompasses electronic media as well?
10:35 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
This is how the bill reads. The provision starts with: “5) For greater certainty, the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a translation of it in any language”. Then we would substitute the rest with: “in the publication or broadcasting of a news report relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, including by means of electronic media.” Then it continues, “or for the purposes of criticism”, and that's where the government amendment could come in and say, “purposes of criticism or parody”, so we would mesh the two together, “relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, is not a use in connection with a business.”
This provision would clarify that electronic means are a subset of publication and the application of this provision would include criticism or parody, which was also something that we wanted to clarify.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I want to ensure, though, in terms of publication as a subset, that this won't prevent any Internet news media site from discussion and so forth. I'm just a little bit concerned about the subset. Even those that are not publications or broadcast, that are just Internet, will still have the same privileges. Is that correct?
10:35 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Yes, because we are saying “including”, so it's not exclusive, “including by means of electronic media”. In other words, we are clarifying that electronic media is clearly included in the scope of this provision and in the definition of “publication”.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
What must happen procedurally here, because Ms. Bincoletto cannot move a subamendment or an amendment, is we'd need someone to move the subamendment, like Mr. Carrie.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt that subamendment?
Do members need that to be read out again?
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You are okay with this, Mr. Masse. Okay.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It is adopted.
Now we are on to amendment G-3 on page 6. Mr. Carrie, I'll have you address the rationale.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Okay, thank you very much.
This is basically if an independent artist wants to do a painting or something along those lines, this will give greater certainty that he is not going to have any action taken against him.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
The term “reproduced on a commercial scale” is grey and nebulous. What do you mean? How do you define “commercial scale”? That's the only thing I want to ask. What is your definition? We're pinpointing what you mean by “commercial scale”.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
If you're going to be making a print and sell 3,500 copies across the country, then you'd be saying that was a commercial scale, but if you've done your own piece of work and it's going to be in the newspaper or something, like a caricature or something along those lines.... The department would be able to clarify even further.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I agree with the intent. I just want to know exactly what it means. That could be a question that all kinds of people ask. If I did 35 prints instead of 12, does that mean comercial scale?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
Sure. The term “commercial scale” can vary, depending on the goods we're talking about. Here we're talking about artistic works. If we're talking about copies that are reproduced in a fairly significant number for the purposes of being distributed and sold in the marketplace, that would be work reproduced on a commercial scale.
If someone takes a picture and then has it reproduced in thousands of copies to be sold at Vancouver Olympic venues as a postcard, that's definitely reproduction on a commercial scale, as opposed to an original painting by an artist in downtown Vancouver that would not be reproduced.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
The big question, though, is that unless you clarify it, the artists themselves don't know exactly what you mean. They could be in violation of this clause by producing an original and then selling 100 prints or whatever. You know, artists sometimes do an original and then do 100 copies of it.
I think there needs to be some clarification so that people don't unwittingly infringe on this clause by doing something that isn't a large-scale printing and distribution of postcards, etc. I'm in agreement with the intent; I just think there needs to be some clarification so we don't have people unwittingly getting into trouble.