House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was income.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy and the 1994 White Paper on Defence.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
George Proud Liberal Hillsborough, PE
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation.
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this bill has been a project of mine for the last number of years. The purpose of the bill is to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to erect plaques or set up museums to mark Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.
In 1864 the Fathers of Confederation met in Charlottetown and laid the foundation for this great country. A few years ago the House passed my motion recognizing Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. The time has come for the federal government to act on that recognition.
This bill provides the government with the authority to act. I urge all members in the House to support the commemoration of this great historical event.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Raymond Lavigne Liberal Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC
Madam Speaker, allow me to submit to you this petition from the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League of Canada.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Shall all questions stand?
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
We have a ruling on Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts. There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows.
A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 7. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 8. On the other hand a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 3. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motions Nos. 6 and 8.
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 will be debated and voted upon separately.
I will now call Motion No. 1.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-46, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 2, with the following:
"(h) patents, trade-marks, indus-".
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, the debate in which I am taking part today is of the utmost interest for the entire Canadian artistic community. If the government were to show some open-mindedness, it could give a great deal of hope to creators working in the cultural industry.
On November 16, 1993, exactly two weeks after the federal election, the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners published an open letter in Le Devoir addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
It pointed out, and I quote:
Honourable Sir, the books, recordings, films, radio and television broadcasts, paintings, sculpture, photographs, choreography and works of entertainment produced by the 30,000 creators, artists and other eligible Quebecers belonging to the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners are everywhere. Both the creators and the public are happy with this situation. However, in the absence of adequate legislation, creators' fundamental rights are still not being recognized and new reproduction and distribution technologies are depriving them of the revenues that the use of their works should generate.
You undoubtedly realize, Sir, that in order to be able to create new works, creators must earn their living from what they produce. Only the Copyright Act can ensure the legal basis for fair remuneration for the work of creators.
The Minister of Heritage had promised to take prompt action. But one year later, creators are still waiting for legislation that would recognize their right over their work. Why is this? There are those who tell us that the answer to this question lies in the fact that two departments share the responsibility for the question of copyright. These departments are the Department of Industry to be established under Bill C-46 and the Department of Canadian Heritage that will eventually be established under Bill C-53.
We now come to the heart of the debate. According to Clause 5 of Bill C-46, one of the duties assigned to the Minister of Industry will be to defend consumers and large corporations. The rights of artists and workers in general are not even mentioned in this bill. As a result, this department would have a hard time recognizing the rights of creators on their works, as these rights are in direct conflict with those of consumers and large corporations.
The heritage department has a moral right to look into the matter. It is, after all, recognized as the primary stakeholder in cultural matters. About 10 people work on these issues on its behalf. However, these officials have no powers; they can only try to influence their colleagues from Industry. That can be a very frustrating experience.
We now come to the second issue, copyright, which comes under two departments defending diametrically opposed interests and is stuck in its turn-of-the-century version.
The review of the act, announced with great pomp on many occasions, is getting nowhere, simply because of differences of opinion between the departments involved. The Union des artistes, for one, wrote in its December 23, 1993 letter to the Prime Minister that dividing responsibilities between the heritage department and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, which had jurisdiction over copyright before reorganization, "stood in the way of harmonious legislative reform -This division of responsibilities has led to a dual vision, which more often than not results in conflicting objectives".
What the creative artists ask for is a strengthening of their first claim on their rights to their work and thus their right to negotiate the use made of these works. For example, the coalition of creative artists and copyright holders says that their rights should be protected as much as those of drug patent holders. In a press release from the coalition, Jean-Claude Germain said that the least a healthy society which is proud of its culture could do would be to protect its creative artists as well as it protects its drug manufacturers.
Briefly, this is what the creative artists are asking for. They want recognition of neighbouring rights, that is, the rights of performers to reproduce and present their works. They want recognition of consequential rights, namely the visual artist's right to a percentage of any profit made on his or her work. They want recognition of equal duration of protection, that is, for all types of works, copyright would be recognized for at least 50 years after the artist's death. They also want a law that is technologically neutral, that is, one that will apply regardless of technological developments.
They want fees to be paid on their private copies, that is, royalties on media which can be privately copied such as diskettes, tapes, videocassettes and cassettes. They want rental rights, that is, a royalty on all works protected by law. Finally, they want appropriate recourse and adequate penalties for those who break the law.
For ten years, the cultural communities in Canada and Quebec have been demanding these straightforward changes to the Copyright Act. They are unanimous on this, but have been unsuccessful. It is therefore urgent to act; the survival of Canadian and Quebec culture is at stake. It is urgent to give our artists the ability to earn a living from what they produce, because without culture, a country has no life, no colour and no future.
The purpose of the amendment moved today by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe is to make Canada and Quebec full-fledged players in this new global economy, which is no longer based on trade in goods but rather on quality of thinking, artistic value, imagination and open-mindedness. Our artists are ready and able to meet the challenge. Denying them the means to do so is not the way to ensure their survival.
Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member from Quebec City I must say I share all of her concerns. Coming from a riding where the cultural community for people who are employed in cultural industries represents the greatest number of people employed I am extremely sensitive to this issue. I do not want you to think, Madam Speaker, that this is a community that I do not care for or am insensitive to. I depend a lot on the views and feelings they provide me in the direction I take.
The member for Québec said that the fundamental rights of the artistic community were being threatened by the positioning in the Department of Industry.
Historically copyright was with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which is now part of Industry Canada. From a historical sense we are being fairly consistent but I think the member for Quebec mentioned a more important thing, the strengthening of the role of the creator. I believe that we are doing that. First of all, we have to realize that this is a joint relationship between Heritage Canada and Industry Canada.
Copyright does not deal exclusively with cultural aspects. On the international level, it is a business issue that impacts on revenues, investment, job creation, innovation, piracy, theft, non-tariff barrier concerns, many of the things that the member talked about in her remarks.
As a government we believe that the Department of Industry, especially with all the new technologies, with the information highway, the concerns that we have for protection, is best equipped to meet those concerns and those needs of the artists.
In light of all of that and the balancing of the concerns, we cannot accept this amendment.
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, the amendment that is being proposed in effect deletes the provision of the minister that the Department of Industry deal with copyright. It is really intended to bring that over to another department.
The issue that has just been made by the hon. member opposite is a very accurate statement, that we need to recognize that the whole area of creator's rights and the business of intellectual property ought to be identified. It is not strictly a matter of heritage, history or things of that sort but is rapidly developing and rapidly changing in our economy in Canada today. We need to recognize that in the area of patents and trademarks of those sorts of things are no less the property of people who use their minds and who use their knowledge to develop particular ideas as much as other kinds of property.
We are moving today into a knowledge economy which is not only a business of making things and of moving people. It is a matter of ideas. It is a matter of innovations. It is a matter of applying these in the right way.
It seems to me that there may be some interest here. In other departments, it is with regard to specific content but in terms of the ownership of certain sorts of things we need to recognize that this is included here in the old traditional way of talking about copyright.
We are really talking about much more than the initial intent of copyright. We are talking about intellectual property. The matter should not be taken out of this clause at this time.
Therefore I think the Reform Party would suggest that colleagues not support this amendment.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Is the House ready for the question?
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
All those opposed will please say nay.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Group number two.