House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was communities.
Herb Gray Liberalfor the Minister of Canadian Heritage
moved that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the National Library Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Albina Guarnieri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce a proposal for several amendments to the National Library Act. These amendments will enhance the effectiveness of legal deposit provisions for the collection and preservation of publications that are part of our Canadian heritage.
I would like to start with a brief presentation on the problems arising from the existing legislation and the purpose of the proposed amendments.
Basically, the legal deposit provisions oblige publishers to deposit copies of all new publications with the National Library of Canada. The purpose of these provisions is to constitute a complete collection of Canadian publications.
Under the legal deposit provisions of the National Library Act, publishers residing in Canada are required to send the National Library, free of charge, two copies of every new publication. As a safety precaution, the National Library places one of the copies in a preservation collection, to be kept there for future generations. The library places the second copy in a reference collection for consultation by universities, researchers, public servants and the general public. Users may consult the collection at the National Library or through the Canadian interlibrary loan network.
However, the act contains a provision whereby publishers need deposit only one copy if the retail value of the publication exceeds $50. This provision, which has not been changed since 1969, and this has created a problem.
In 1969, very few new publications sold for more than $50. This means that the National Library received two copies of practically all new publications. However, in recent years, the publishing market has changed considerably, and today, many publications cost more than $50. As a result, the number of cases in which the library receives only one copy is increasing steadily.
However, in order to continue to preserve our publications and offer services, and thus fulfil its twofold mandate, the National Library still needs two copies of each publication, so that it is obliged to purchase the second copy it does not receive under existing deposit provisions.
The amendments being proposed would eliminate completely from the act the exemption for second copies based on retail value. In its place is introduced in the book deposit regulations, which are made pursuant to the act, new and more limited exemption criteria that would still permit the deposit of just one copy, but only in instances where the deposit of the second copy would in fact represent a significant financial burden to the publisher.
The book deposit regulations are being revised and will be ready for implementation when the bill is proclaimed. The regulations would permit publishers of limited edition publications, such as livres d'artistes, to deposit only one copy with the National Library.
In an effort to encourage compliance with legal deposit provisions we are proposing the removal of the specific fine of $150 for non-compliance as is stipulated in the current act and replacing it with a provision stating that non-compliance is an offence punishable on summary conviction, rather than continuing to build into the act a precise sum that needs to be updated periodically. The maximum fine of $150 in the current act has not been an effective deterrent for non-complying publishers because often the value of new publications is significantly greater than the maximum fine of $150.
I feel that the proposed penalty provisions would allow the courts to determine the appropriate penalty, as well as to impose a more substantial fine if it were warranted. The act would however explicitly exclude the possibility of imprisonment being imposed as a punishment or for default of payment of a fine.
I would like to point out that non-compliance with legal deposit is already a criminal offence punishable on summary conviction. The specific reference to a maximum penalty is being deleted in order to permit the imposition of a fine up to a maximum imposed under the Criminal Code.
In order to ensure the deposit of federal government publications with the National Library of Canada, we are proposing an amendment to the act that would specify an obligation on the part of the government to deposit with the National Library all federal government publications. Although the deposit of government publications is currently provided for through administrative policy, there is no clear legislative authority for the policy.
There have been consultations with English and French language publishers representing key sectors of the publishing industry such as major trade publishers, text book publishers, magazine publishers, small presses, specialist publishers, microfilm publishers, and publishers of livres d'artistes. They have indicated the proposed amendments together with the regulations will not impose any significant financial burden on publishers.
During consultations, particular attention was paid to Quebec publishers because Quebec has its own system of legal deposit. This means that Quebec publishers must deposit copies with the National Library of Canada as well as la Bibliothéque nationale du Québec. Quebec publishers who were consulted understood and supported the proposed amendments.
Furthermore, the Quebec Department of Culture and the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec were consulted and had no objections to the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments will make the legal deposit provisions in the act much more effective as an instrument to support the mandate of the National Library. They will ensure the comprehensive collection of our published heritage to support the research and information needs of Canadians today, as well as the future. It is a collection which is an invaluable source of information on Canada's culture and our national identity.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 entitled an Act to amend the National Library Act proposes to update the provisions in the legislation governing the legal deposit of books with the National Library of Canada.
Consultations with several groups affected by the legislation have led us to conclude that overall, publishers are almost unanimous in recognizing the validity of the legal deposit process.
Furthermore, almost all praised the positive relationship that generally exists between publishers and the National Library of Canada. Finally, all of them acknowledged that a country must take the necessary measures to safeguard its collective memory.
Legal deposit is an important tool, one that ensures the preservation of Canada's heritage and ensures that taxpayers have access to it. Under the current act, a Canadian publisher must send a copy of any book published to the National Library, when the retail value of the book exceeds $50. The National Library of Canada may acquire, at its own discretion, a second copy using money from its purchase fund.
According to our sources, the National Library would have to spend roughly $700,000 each year to acquire second copies of books. Like most government agencies and Crown corporations, the National Library of Canada must operate on a tight budget and it no longer has the financial means to purchase second copies.
As for the crux of the matter, this bill would require publishers to deposit with the National Library two copies of any book published in Canada, regardless of the retail value of the book. Obviously, in this context, "book" is taken in the broad sense of the word. In the current act, a book is defined as follows: "library matter of every kind, nature and description and includes any document, paper, record, tape or other thing published by a publisher, on or in which information is written, recorded, stored or reproduced".
The second amendment concerns the fines that apply when the legislation is contravened. The bill proposes to increase the maximum fine payable from $150 to $25,000, in the case of a corporation, and to $2,000, in the case of an individual.
The office of the critic for National Heritage consulted a number of publishers and I would like to share with you today some of the comments that were made as part of this consultation process.
The government could take the suggestions they made and concerns they expressed at that time into consideration in making the related regulations. Incidentally, I deplore that these regulations could not be tabled at the same time as the bill. They are crucial, in the case of art books among others, but I will come back to that later.
The publishers whom the office of the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata spoke to pointed out of course, as I indicated earlier, the need to be involved in the creation of a collective memory. They also described the statutory requirement under Bill C-26 to deposit two copies of a book instead of one, no matter what the retail price is, as an additional financial
burden on the publishing industry. I repeat: "an additional financial burden on the industry".
Furthermore, this requirement will be particularly demanding on Quebec publishers who already send two copies of their books to the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec and will now have to send two copies of all their publications, whatever their retail value, to the National Library of Canada. The hon. secretary of state referred earlier to consultations between the two libraries. The government's attention should be called to this duplication.
Based on the information provided to us in a departmental briefing session, the National Library of Canada is planning to save $400,000 in so doing. The government is transferring this financial burden onto an industry it is already depriving of substantial revenues through cuts in other programs.
The government could have been more imaginative and looked for an approach that would have allowed publishers to be compensated for the new requirement to deposit two copies of all their publications with the National Library of Canada. The government could have considered, for example, giving them a tax credit equal to the retail price of publications sent to the National Library of Canada. This would have covered the losses incurred by publishers as a result of this bill.
I stress that it is never too late to do some good and that the Minister of Canadian Heritage can still review this measure and have it implemented in the best interest of the industry he claims to be protecting.
One word about art books. These books can be sold for thousands of dollars. I have been informed that their average sales price is $2,000 in Quebec. The number of copies printed is therefore limited. Some of them require the co-operation of master binders, poets and lithographers and are so elaborate that they are referred to as luxury books. For these craftsmen, the legislation is costly, and I hope that the Canadian regulations will take this reality into account.
When the Quebec government reviewed the legal deposit legislation, it chose to restrict the two-copy deposit requirement to books whose total value does not exceed $250. Publishers of books worth more than $5,000 are not required to deposit them at the Quebec national library. That is why we are very disappointed that the regulations accompanying this bill have not been tabled today, thus preventing us from assessing, with full knowledge of the facts, the true extent of this bill.
Microfilm producers are particularly concerned. Production costs of microfilms, weeklies and dailies are high and buyers are few. I have been told that a micropublisher sells two or three copies of his work and that the National Library of Canada used to buy microfilms. From now on, micropublishers will have to provide two free copies of their work for the National Library of Canada and another two copies for the Quebec library.
When one sells one copy of a microfilm and gives two away, it is understandable that the Canadian microfilm society denounces Bill C-26 as a disaster.
In its May 20 letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the society wrote: "We want micropublishers to be totally exempted from the legal deposit requirement. Without such an exemption, we will be forced to completely stop microfilming weeklies and dailies and selling the resulting reels of positive prints."
As you can see, this observation and this appeal are very, very serious. Since the regulations are unknown, I would hope that the minister will note the micropublishers' concerns, especially since the heritage minister is well placed to know because the Canadian Microfilm Corporation is now doing very important heritage work. This corporation is the one that microfilms the Courrier de Laval ; the first eleven years of that paper were not microfilmed and were lost in a fire. Without appropriate regulations, all of the Courrier de Laval and our weeklies will disappear from our collective cultural memory because they will not be microfilmed.
On another topic, the government could also have taken the opportunity to combine in one place the documents to be filled in for legal deposit. In the consultations undertaken by the office of the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, it was mentioned more than once that what irritates publishers is not so much legal deposit in itself but having to complete various forms for legal deposit in Quebec and in Canada and additional forms for copyright and publication notices, to name only these. So I leave this suggestion for the minister to work on and remind him that if he acts on it, he will have the co-operation of the industry, which is fed up with bureaucratic red tape.
I cannot conclude these few remarks without mentioning duplication.
As you probably know, in 1967, Quebec passed a law governing the legal deposit of all Quebec works, and rightly so, since culture is essential and is what defines us.
It seems obvious to me that the federal government should seek to conclude an agreement with the Government of Quebec to turn over to the Quebec National Library the management of all documents collected by the National Library of Canada under the legal deposit provisions. This would be a good way to manage public funds.
Furthermore, such an agreement could include tranferring to Quebec everything from Quebec that the National Library of Canada has acquired over the years. By investing $2.5 million to buy documents in Canada, the federal government is appropriating archives that were made in Quebec and bringing them to Ottawa. I think it is logical for these documentary materials,
which will be used mainly by Quebecers, to stay in Quebec so that they are available in French.
I think that such simple measures would help taxpayers regain confidence in their institutions and show that we take taxpayers' interests to heart and organize for maximum efficiency.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library Act.
This piece of legislation appears to be a housekeeping bill that makes the legal deposit provisions of the act accurately reflect the contemporary costs of texts produced today.
This debate demonstrates the willingness of my party to work with the government to implement legislation that has a positive impact on expenditure reduction. I want to state that again, expenditure reduction, because I will be addressing that particular aspect as I discuss the passage of this bill in my text today.
It has always been the mandate of this side of the House to oppose government legislation for valid reasons justified by the commitment that we made to our constituents for responsible financial management. However, at the same time we also provide constructive alternatives for the government as we present our arguments. This bill is an example of a case where we can support the government and the proposed changes to the legislation.
My office has spoken with the president of the Association of Canadian Publishers. According to that conversation there do not appear to be any concerns with this bill other than a minor cost to publishers which they have indicated presents them with little concern.
Publishers are currently able to deduct from their taxes the wholesale costs of the books which they are required to submit to the National Library.
Our previous speaker mentioned a tax credit at the retail level. This is just to reiterate that there already is an opportunity for a tax deduction of the wholesale costs. In effect, the only cost to be borne by the publisher is the opportunity cost of the sale of the book. This means that the cost to the publisher is the revenue it fails to receive on the books that it submits.
I support the intent of this bill. It addresses in effect three outdated facets of the legal deposit provisions of the National Library Act, all of which were in need of bringing into contemporary terms.
First, the government has recently been in the practice of submitting two copies of all of its publications. Bill C-26 now makes it a legislated requirement to do so. What is being done here is simply formalizing an already followed informal practice.
Second, individuals and corporations are fined under the act if they do not comply with the legal deposit provision requiring them to submit copies of their publication to the library. The fines were originally listed in the act at $150 for individuals and $2,000 for corporations should they fail to submit.
In many instances, and this has been pointed out previously, it was cheaper not to submit and pay the fine than it was to submit. In such instances clearly the fines were not effective deterrents. Bill C-26 recognizes this failure of the act and has now tied penalties to the Criminal Code summary convictions.
This is a good idea for two reasons. It increases the fines making them effective deterrents. As well, the Criminal Code is regularly updated whereas the act is not. Therefore this will have the effect of addressing the issue of fines more readily and as needed.
Third, prior to this bill a publisher was required to submit to the library only one copy of a book if the book was worth more than $50. However, given inflation most books currently cost close to that amount in any event. This bill would require publishers to submit two copies regardless of worth except when such a submission would cause an undue financial burden.
The only potential problem with the bill is the vague discussion of undue financial burden. I too express my concern that the regulations were not tabled with this bill. I would hope that when we get to committee there will further and very specific discussion.
The bill proposes to replace subsection 13(4) of the act which refers to non-compliance with any provision of the section or the regulations. The specification as to what constitutes undue financial burden will be included in the regulations and clearly understood when this bill is discussed at committee.
It is important to acknowledge that publishers which publish extremely limited editions and works of art not be required to submit two copies of the publication. The regulations must protect against causing unreasonable financial burden to the publishers.
Speaking of financial burden, at the departmental briefing on this bill it was made quite clear that by making these changes to the legal deposit provision, the National Library would not have to spend as much on acquiring copies of books. The director general of corporate policy and planning for the National Library stated that should Bill C-26 be passed the National Library could spend between $300,000 and $350,000 less on acquisitions next year. It is difficult, in fact inexcusable, not to support a measure that could save taxpayers' dollars.
Given that the library expects this bill to save it some $300,000 I will be recommending to the Canadian heritage standing committee that the government decrease the appropriations for the National Library by the amount this bill is expected to save and I would strongly urge the government to support this recommendation.
We have a tremendous opportunity to set a precedent here by passing a bill recognizing that it affects next year's appropriations. However, if the appropriations for the National Library are not decreased by this amount then this bill will have the effect of giving it a $300,000 increase.
The Minister of Finance has been asking for constructive ways to trim his budget. Here is a great opportunity to cut $300,000 from the budget of the National Library. Most important, such a cut would have absolutely no effect on the performance of the library.
While we are discussing how this bill could pay taxpayer dollars we should examine the mandate of the library, for such an investigation leads us to the conclusion that there are also other ways to save money with the National Library.
In these times of fiscal restraint we should revisit the wisdom of having both a National Archives and a National Library. It is quite possible that the mandates of these facilities overlap to some extent and that the removal of such duplication of services would streamline their efficiency and save this government even more money.
I can assure the government that this kind of proactive legislation would meet with hearty approval from my side of the House.
While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are necessary-
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
With all due respect to the hon. member, she has made liberal references to this side of the House and how it feels. I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair and to the hon. member that this side of the House does indeed include 26 members of the government.
National Library ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I do not really believe that is a point of order, but I am sure the hon. member for Calgary Southeast could be more specific.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows my party and everybody knows which party represents the government in the House. I really feel that was a rather innocuous comment to make and I am not going to address it further.
While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are necessary I am mystified why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not tabling other substantive legislation. This is a housekeeping bill. We were informed that his department was going to be implementing phase II of the copyright legislation. However, there seems to be some lack of clarity as to which department will be bringing this legislation forward. Regardless of which department tables this legislation, its importance should bring it to the House sooner rather than later.
As well, the Minister for Canadian Heritage has stated that he is in favour of partially privatizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Canadians are anxiously awaiting legislation that reflects these comments from the minister. As well, the minister has stated that the only reason he has not filled the vacancies on the boards of directors of his department's cultural organization is that he is awaiting a report recommending changes to the size, structure and appointment process for these boards.
This is the kind of legislation for which the Reform Party on this particular side of the House is waiting. We are anxiously awaiting legislation that reflects recommendations in that report and that starts to address some of the concerns that the Canadian taxpayers in this country are waiting for.
Therefore, the safe passage of Bill C-26 through the House as well as the areas just mentioned demand immediate action by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. I strongly urge the government to act, thereby identifying other opportunities in the department that will save money.
Rest assured my side of the House, the Reform Party, will be there to help usher through the House any cost saving legislation.
National Library ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is the House ready for the question?
National Library ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find unanimous consent to dispose of this bill in committee of the whole this day.
National Library ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The House has heard the terms from the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?
National Library ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
National Library ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Chairman
Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-26, an Act to amend the National Library Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
National Library ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Clause agreed to.)
On Clause 2:
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if appropriate attention was given earlier to the Official Opposition's answer, but I want to point out the financial burden which will be imposed on the cultural world because of this double deposit requirement.
The secretary of state said that discussions had taken place between the National Library of Canada and the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec. Therefore, I want to ask her if the issue of double deposit, both in terms of books and related money, has been discussed and if the upcoming regulations will take that additional economic burden into account.
This is my first question. With your authorization, Mr. Speaker, I will raise other issues as well. I would like to hear the secretary of state on this.
Albina Guarnieri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Chairman, from what I heard, there has been a great deal of consultation with the Quebec minister of culture, and I think that the regulations will accommodate everyone, while also reflecting the interests of all concerned. I say this based on what I was told.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the same problem exists in other provinces but, in the specific case of the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec and the National Library of Canada, will the parliamentary secretary provide a precise answer to the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata regarding the issue of double book depositing in two libraries, which also involves a double deposit of money? Will the Secretary of State provide a clear answer regarding this issue?
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
Mr. Chairman, based on what I was told, Quebec publishers were consulted. They clearly understood what we were proposing and they supported the suggested amendments.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Chairman, my colleague is right, they supported the amendments, but with one qualification. It relates to the regulations which have not been tabled along with the bill. They drew the attention of our critic to the fact that they will have a double financial burden. The parliamentary secretary is right, they support the bill, but they want to know what will be done regarding the double legal deposit. Did you think of the burden for the industry?
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the regulations will satisfy Quebec as well as the other provinces. Quebec has its own legislation, but I believe that the minister did everything he could to satisfy Quebec in this regard.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her remarks, but what we have in mind particularly are the limited editions, the art books. You know very well that some artists produce major works as limited editions. The legal deposits could then exceed the sales. You should consider this. What we suggest is that the regulations provide for a tax credit.
My last question deals with another problem created by having two levels requiring the same thing. We asked whether it was possible to consider a single-window proposition, since Quebec already has its library.
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
Mr. Chairman, from what I understand, widespread consultations with both English and French language publishers representing key sectors within the publishing industry including, as the hon. member mentioned the livres d'artistes, indicate that the proposed amendments that we are suggesting today will not impose any significant financial burden.
The member's fears may be alleviated when the regulations are presented. I know the minister has given an undertaking that the proposed amendments will certainly assist and enhance the publishing industry's interests rather than impede them in any way.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for telling me that our fears will be alleviated.
In conclusion, I will say that I raised the issue of micropublishing and of the problems facing microfilm publishers. This is another very specific example of a very limited production. These publishers mentioned that their sales were very low and that the National Library of Canada was one of their customers. Under such circumstances, I would like their very specific concerns to be taken into account.