Madam Speaker, Bill C-53 certainly has given rise to a lot of criticism for a bill that was supposed to be a simple housekeeping measure.
It must have become quite obvious by now that the Official Opposition is dead against this bill. And our reasons for opposing it are far from cosmetic. They have to do mainly with the very essence of our cultural identity as Quebecers as well as the necessity of ensuring the survival of our culture through a sensible handling of the copyright issue.
First of all, after education and postsecondary education, the federal government has now extended its involvement to mass communication, even though this is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the federal government is centralizing more and more, and this bill is but one example. That is why we denounce the deceit in calling the department to be established the "Department of Canadian Heritage", when this is just a disguised way of establishing a department of culture and to invade a provincial jurisdiction. The people of Quebec wonder why they should contribute financially to a scheme to deny that Quebec is different, unique, as a nation, when even the staunchest federalists in Quebec recognize this fact.
My hon. colleagues will be reminded that, equipped with international agreements, English Canada is now in a position to counter cultural invasion from the U.S. This is a totally legitimate concern, seeing how important it is to differentiate oneself from such a powerful neighbour and to manage one's cultural resources. But why can Quebec not have similar concerns? Why would the government not feel the need to also do something to protect the rights of creative artists on its territory?
Following government reorganization, copyright, which used to be with the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would now come under the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry. Instead of using this restructuring as an opportunity to concentrate copyright responsibilities at the heritage department, which is the only one mandated to protect the work and its creators, the government persists in its paralysing indecision with regard to copyright.
Such dichotomy only leads to divergent political priorities, especially when the officials of the two departments involved see the issue in totally different lights.
For instance, Paul Racine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development, told the Canadian heritage committee: "-the fact is that the minister and the department set all copyright policies and oversee the drafting work-as was done in the past and will be done in the future with Phase 2. In other words, they do all the work from A to Z. As I told you, this was recognized by previous Prime Ministers through repeated formal ministerial delegation and it is, in my opinion, recognized in law for the first time through this amendment. It is a matter of fact. Whoever gets the ingredients, cooks and serves them may or may not be called a chef, but he or she certainly bears a close resemblance to one".
However, there appears to be several chiefs, as Mr. Von Finckenstein, Deputy Minister at Industry Canada, told the Standing Committee on Industry something quite different. He said: "Before the merger, copyright was in the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, together with all other intellectual property, be it patent, trademarks or copyright. This whole division has now gone to Industry. It has not been broken up or changed. The people in charge of copyright are the people who once worked for CCA on this matter. As for their mandate, which is to develop copyright policy, the Minister of Industry is indeed ultimately responsible for the application of the law and for amending it, but policy decisions are obviously made at the cabinet level, where the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for instance, can put forward the cultural point of view". That is what Mr. von Finckenstein said.
Therefore it is total confusion, the department of tutti frutti, as my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata calls it. Even the officials do not know who really is responsible for the Copyright Act.
The government is supporting a myth and confusion by letting people believe that the heritage department plays the leading role with respect to copyright, when the real power clearly resides in the industry department.
It must be noted that the deadlock blocking revision of the Copyright Act is partly due to conflict between two ideologies: protecting the creative artist vs. protecting the consumer. Performing artists, creative artists and copyright holders do not benefit from this division; rather it is those whose concerns have nothing to do with cultural development, values and identity.
Furthermore, it is totally unacceptable and far-fetched to put the Copyright Act, which protects the economic and moral rights of creative artists and the holders of these rights, under the Department of Industry. It is ridiculous to put copyrights on the same level as trade-marks, patents, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies, as in paragraph 4(1)( h ) of Bill C-46.
Those who propose that copyrights be under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry are wrong. Such a decision would greatly jeopardize cultural creativity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, the cultural sector is an industry, in the sense that it generates an important economic activity, but it is certainly not an industry like the other ones.
Cultural development depends on the Copyright Act, which allows artists to be associated with the economic life of their works. Consequently, if the current apathy persists, it could seriously hurt a very important cultural industry. The government approves enormous budgets to defend and promote Canadian identity. Is it not high time this government recognized the cultures which are part of that identity and are its very foundations, and show some respect for the artists who shape these cultures?
The government's apathy is all the more incomprehensible considering that the Liberal Party often insisted that even though culture generates economic activity, it cannot be treated like other industries. Moreover, the Liberals pledged, in their red book, to support production, marketing and distribution, so as to promote the circulation of Canadian books, films and recordings on the domestic market, to consider allowing investment tax credits to stimulate the production of such works, and also to consider the possibility of providing income averaging mechanisms in the Income Tax Act, for Canadian artists. However, the Quebec and Canadian cultural industries, and the artists, are still waiting.
Also, in answer to questions from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Liberal Party pledged, during the last election campaign, to review the Copyright Act and ensure above all that authors get their dues, while facilitating access to material protected by copyright. The Liberals claimed to understand the importance of copyright. It made a commitment to restructure the administrative organization and review the Conservative decision to split this jurisdiction between two departments. But again, our artists are still waiting!
These facts and the delayed amendment minister Dupuy put forward when he appeared before the committee show the lack of interest and the total lack of respect of the government for Quebec and Canadian artists and cultures. Allow me to describe the disrespectful attitude shown by Liberal members of the committee. I have already mentioned the last minute amendment put forward by the Minister of Heritage.
One of the committee members, a loyal and faithful Liberal, said that, when the amendment was proposed, everyone in the room applauded and commended the minister's decision. Not so, Madam Speaker! The members of the other parties did not applaud. The people representing the artists did not applaud
either, especially since the same hon. member had just finished saying that these people had "pleaded" with the committee to have the opportunity to present their very legitimate requests. What a respectful attitude for the government members to have!
The artist are, in fact, far from satisfied with the minister's amendment. That is what they told us. Several associations from both Quebec and English Canada, who were able to appear before the Committee on Canadian Heritage because of pressure by members of the Bloc Quebecois, told us they were disappointed with and concerned about the attitude of the government.
Twenty-five Quebec and Canadian associations, representing more than 30,000 writers, creative artists and performers, sent an open letter to the Minister of Heritage asking to complete the review of the Copyright Act, in light of the following nine recommendations: the confirmation of the creative artist as the first holder of the rights to his or her work; the recognition of neighbouring rights; the adjudication of consequential rights to visual artists; the protection of works for the rest of the life of the author or the copyright holder; the use of technologically neutral definitions; compensation through private copy; the establishment of a rental right; the elimination of all exceptions to the protection of works; the adoption of adequate sanctions to protect the rights of creative artists.
These demands are far from being unreasonable since numerous countries have included them in their legislation. Germany, Japan and France have all adhered to the 1961 Rome Convention, but Canada has not. These G-7 countries have recognized the need for royalties on private copy, but Canada has not. France and Germany have legislated on neighbouring rights, but Canada has not; it does not seem to find it appropriate to do so.
In conclusion, I would say that it is through copyright and neighbouring rights that creative artists and copyright holders can ensure the continuity of their creative work by receiving just compensation for the use of their work. The present situation has to change. Not only is this situation unacceptable in the context of a society that claims to respect the people who are the source of its cultural heritage, but its national and international notoriety makes it embarrassing for Quebec and Canada.
This government will soon prove to us that it sees culture only as a symbol that can generate money.
The least we can say is that, with such a policy and such a government, the future is certainly not bright for the pillars of Canada's and Quebec's cultures. Let us be realistic and not mince words: the government is showing once again that it is totally incapable of taking a stand in favour of artists and understanding the interests of creative artists.