If we are proposing this many amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is chiefly because the bill, as it stands, is really unacceptable to us.
I would like to address in particular the amendment we have proposed on copyrights, as we would like to have copyright throughout federal jurisdiction brought under the Department of Canadian Heritage. We feel this amendment is essential for the following reason: shared responsibility for copyright by the two departments causes undue delay in reviewing the Copyright Act.
When they testified before us last Monday, representatives of the artists' union told us that they have been waiting for politicians to get around to amending the Copyright Act for eight years.
On December 22, 1993, the director general of the Montreal artists' union, Mr. Demers, wrote the Prime Minister to tell him that this sharing of responsibility by two departments has led to a two-headed vision, which has resulted in objectives that were more often than not contradictory. The Copyright Act is the only legislation protecting the rights of creative artists. We believe that it should be designed around this priority. Since it is in the interest of creative artists that consumers have unrestricted access to their works, the Department of Canadian Heritage will certainly not lose sight of their unique interests. We need only review existing legislation in other countries to see that protecting the rights of creative artists in no way impedes the circulation of their works, quite the contrary.
Another reason for presenting this amendment is that the Department of Industry is mandated to look after the interests of consumers and corporations, a responsibility that interferes with the interests of creative artists. The cultural industry is like any other industry, according to the Department of Industry.
During the proceedings of the industry committee, the director general of corporate governance at the Department of Industry, David Tobin, testified as follows:
Our view, of course, is that cultural groups are exactly that. They are a cultural industry and we recognize them as that. There are employment and financial considerations. They are adding value to it. When you ask whether we treat them differently, I would argue that we consult with them, we share information with them, and we discuss their concerns. I do not think we treat them any differently.
This raises a doubt in my mind: what will happen in the next rounds of negotiations if we are unable to really defend our cultural industries, if we do not see them at the outset as clearly different from other industries? What will happen then with the GATT agreements we had such a hard time securing, at the very last minute this time around.
Another reason is that the industry minister does have legal responsibility for copyright matters. They tried several times to convince us that the responsibility was shared between the two departments, that the two ministers would address the issue, and that the Department of Industry works with the Department of Canadian Heritage. The deputy minister who testified on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage said that they were 100 per cent responsible for drafting the bills.
Some responsible individuals with the same mandate at the Department of Industry told the industry committee that their goal-as Mr. Finckenstein stated-was to consolidate the four old departments into a single one and to combine the four old laws into a single one. That was to create the Department of Industry. This bill reflects the situation that prevailed under the old legislation.
The old legislation included the Copyright Act, which came under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; responsibility for it has now been given to the Department of Industry. Let me say that the old Department of Communications Act does not contain a single reference to copyright. The only law which refers to it is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act. We now find this same reference in the Department of Industry Act.
This clearly suggests that the Department of Canadian Heritage will have no jurisdiction over copyright, despite what we may have been told and what the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself may have said.
Another reason is that the heritage department's mandate is to promote cultural development. We saw that very clearly in the brief from the Union des artistes, which said: "Since the role of this department is to look after identity, values, cultural development and heritage, we think that it is logical, fitting and obvious that this department defends and promotes the rights of those without whom the above concepts are meaningless".
Surprisingly, during the election campaign which brought it to power, the Liberal Party answered a questionnaire from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, dated October 4. Two questions drew my attention because the answers were particularly interesting.
The Liberal Party was asked if it would make it a priority to revise the Copyright Act so that this law would really defend the financial and moral rights of writers. The Liberal Party answered that revising the Copyright Act would be a priority for it. "We will ensure above all that writers reap the just rewards of their work at the same time as we facilitate access to material protected by copyright. Liberals understand the importance of copyright. That is why, when we reorganize the administrative structure", which we are now doing with this bill, "we will review the Conservatives' decision to divide jurisdiction over copyright between two departments".
I am really sad to see the Liberal Party, which had made a formal commitment to establish a single department and to correct the mistake made by the Conservatives, perpetuate that mistake through Bill C-53. I am sad to see that it gives priority to the industry rather than to creators. Soon, Canada will no longer be a place for creators, because the industry will have taken precedence over creativity.
Another reason why the government should accept the amendment which we propose is expressed, once again, by the Canadian Conference of the Arts: "The cultural sector has a long experience of the paralysis resulting from the sharing of responsibility in key sectors. Suffice it to mention the dead end in
which the copyright legislation is stuck, precisely because of this fragmentation of jurisdiction".
As recently as yesterday, we saw an example of the difference between two departments can be and perhaps what a minister with clout can do. When we pressured the heritage minister on broadcasting and cable television companies, he said: "I cannot intervene". However, when major companies asked the government to order the CRTC to review the decision to approve a $2 increase, the government said: "Yes, that decision will be reviewed". Not because that decision is costly for the poor, but because it affects major companies. That is the problem: When it comes to defending real causes, the Liberal Party does not deliver. It does not fulfill the promises it made on cultural development and copyrights.
I deplore this situation and I hope that, before the end of the debate, the government will have the courage to postpone the passing of this bill, which really does not benefit Canadian culture and creative artists. I also hope that the minister, who probably hears our plea somewhere, will take these factors into consideration for the future of Canada.