House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was safety.

Topics

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Vaudreuil Québec

Liberal

Nick Discepola LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her efforts in tackling these criminal justice issues that are of concern to us and indeed to all Canadians. My comments will be directed to those provisions in this bill aimed at changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The proposals would alter section 120 of that act, which in large part sets out the current sentence calculation scheme. Specifically, the proposed amendments relating to section 120 would provide two things. First, that offenders sentenced for first or second degree murder would serve the full parole ineligibility period on that sentence, which is a maximum of 25 years, plus one-third or a maximum of seven years of a sentence, whichever is less, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

For an offender already serving a sentence when the sentence for murder is imposed, he or she would serve one-third or seven years of that sentence, again whichever is less.

The second point is that offenders would serve consecutively all the full parole ineligibility periods for sentences for multiple first or second degree murder convictions not arising of the same event or series of events.

The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more stringently with repeat offenders, especially those convicted of first or second degree murder.

Who could not agree with the notion that a new sentence for first or second degree murder and for offences arising out of the same event or series of events committed by an offender, including an offender who is already under sentence, should result in a clear, meaningful consequence? The government agrees with the intent of these proposals. That is why we have already moved to provide an effective and balanced remedy to this problem.

Last January Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes, came into force. The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were devout with the intent of ensuring that offenders who get new sentences feel the effect of those sentences.

It is important at this point to outline the main elements of the reforms which will help restore confidence in the sentence calculation process.

In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender will have to serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for parole. This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would have to be served. However, except in cases of murder, an offender's parole eligibility date cannot be later than 15 years from the date the last sentence was imposed.

In addition, the sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 include the principle of adding parole ineligibility periods, where a lifer receives an additional definite sentence.

For example, a lifer with 10 years of parole ineligibility who receives an additional 15 year sentence will have five years of ineligibility added on, for a total of 15 years.

As I said earlier, the exception to this 15 year rule are sentences imposed as a result of a first or second degree murder conviction. In such cases, the maximum parole ineligibility period is 25 years.

The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were developed on the basis of extensive consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals. The reforms in Bill C-45 were developed after a long process of consultation and scrutiny by the standing committee during both the last and the current Parliaments. The standing committee heard from over 60 witnesses representing 32 different organizations. During its clause-by-clause review, the committee debated the sentence calculation reforms set out in Bill C-45, and endorsed them in their entirety.

The amendments in Bill C-45 strike a fair and reasonable balance between punishment, respect for the court-imposed sentence, and effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

Striking such a crucial balance is achieved through a combination of basic automatic features, such as the automatic return to custody of a parolee who receives a new sentence, and discretionary measures that allow individual circumstances to be taken into consideration so that once the punitive portion of the sentence has been served, the offender is not kept in custody beyond the point when he or she can be safely released under community supervision. This is what the current sentence calculation scheme is designed to do.

While I believe that the hon. member's proposals are well-intentioned, I am also concerned that they fall short of the impact intended by Bill C-45. The amendments proposed by the hon. member would maximize punishment, and no one disagrees with this objective. But they would also reduce the discretion of the courts and the Parole Board and make the system more arbitrary and no more effective in terms of public safety.

The proposals could introduce new anomalous situations that could lead to serious Charter challenges. For example, the proposals would have a retroactive effect on concurrent sentences an offender is serving when convicted of murder. For all intents and purposes, sentences that were initially concurrent would become consecutive because the ineligibility period on each and every sentence would be added.

Not only would this rule undermine the role of the sentencing court and render sentence calculation uncertain and difficult to administer, but its impact on the amount of time to be served, and particularly its retroactive application, would certainly give rise to serious charter challenges.

Another difficulty posed by this bill is the rule regarding the addition of all of the full parole ineligibility periods sentences for additional first or second degree murder convictions not arising out of the same event or series of events.

Not only would this further reduce the scope of the National Parole Board's discretion, but it would also mean that offenders who could safely be released would remain in costly custody well beyond the point that is necessary or in society's interest, and this at great public expense.

Lengthy incarceration beyond the point that is necessary for public safety is not the answer. We cannot afford to lose sight of the other important objectives of the C-45 reforms, particularly with respect to the courts' and the National Parole Board's discretion and the offender's rehabilitation and safe reintegration into society.

This governement supports the principle that repeat criminal behavior should be dealt with more stringently, and that is precisely why the mandatory 25 year parole ineligibility period for additional murder conviction is provided for in the Criminal Code.

I would also point out to the members of this House that being eligible for parole does not mean that a lifer will automatically be released. It is up to the National Parole Board to grant parole only after careful consideration of all relevant information, including the level of risk to the community.

The reforms brought about by Bill C-45, which was passed in January of this year, provide a comprehensive response that is proportionate to the sentence handed down by the court in any individual case.

The government has brought in a tough, fair, and balanced sentence calculation scheme that makes sure offenders feel the effect of their repeat offences, respects the sentences imposed by the courts and limits but still allows for discretionary conditional release when safe to do so in the judgement of the National Parole Board.

I submit that the issue raised by the hon. member is a worthy one. The sentence calculation reforms recently introduced by the government address this and other concerns of Canadians in the most effective and efficient manner, particularly with respect to public safety.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having been the seconder of the bill I had hoped to speak. Since the hour is almost finished I would like to make a motion to the House.

I ask the parliamentary secretaries to the attorney general and the justice minister to confer with each other prior to making their vote.

We have heard many motions to have this deemed votable. We also know there is another option to keep the subject matter of Bill C-274 alive, referring it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I ask for unanimous consent to refer the subject matter of Bill C-274 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on behalf of all Canadians.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The hon. member for Mississauga South has asked that the subject matter of Bill C-274 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, in a rare exception for me in this House, I am particularly pleased to speak to the second reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

I will begin with just a little comment on the cover page. This bill was introduced by "la ministre du Patrimoine" and not "le ministre". It was the Deputy Prime Minister who was Minister of Heritage at that time. What is more, it was introduced here in the House this afternoon by another woman, "la ministre par intérim du Patrimoine", the acting heritage minister. Dare I hope that the House will take note of the difference, for in French there is a grammatical distinction made between male and female ministers.

Having said this, we and all of the artistic community have been hopefully waiting a long time for this bill, since it was promised a very long time ago. Since the start of this 35th Parliament, eight questions by six different Bloc Quebecois members have been asked between April 29, 1994 and March 28, 1996. Those eight questions have been asked, one after the other, of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, each time in order to attempt to discover whether there was any chance that this bill would be introduced soon, since it had been promised to us session after session. We had also raised a ninth question on distribution rights.

On examining the bill as a whole, there are a number of reasons to be pleased. Neighbouring rights have finally been recognized;

there are the beginnings of a system to protect private copies and to monitor them to some extent and to further protect our artists' rights and, finally, distribution rights. One note of discord, however: a highly disagreeable aspect of the bill-and I will come back to this if I have time a little later-involving the increase in the number of exceptions.

For the benefit of those watching, if anybody still is at this hour, I would first like to clarify the meaning of copyright. It is a legal framework in which the creators of literary, artistic or other works such as films, books, sound recordings, information products or computer programs to request compensation when use is made of their work.

Copyright therefore establishes the economic and moral right of the author to control the publication of his work, to be compensated and to protect the integrity of his artistic achievements.

Copyright is vital to creators. In 1994, $44 million was collected in royalties by author-composers for the public performance of their musical works. In all, the cultural world represents a $16 billion industry employing over 600,000 people. So, as we have said for a very long time, it is no small job sector in our country.

What about neighbouring rights, what do they add? Neighbouring rights add recognition of the work now done by performers and producers. For example, when a song was played on the radio, only the author and the composer were entitled to royalties. Now, the performer and the producer will be also, thanks to the neighbouring rights, be entitled to royalties, will be able to be paid for their work in a way.

When all this process is over, we will be able to join the 50 countries, which are parties to the Rome Convention, 50 countries excluding the United States. Earlier this afternoon, our colleague for Medicine Hat, speaking for the Reform Party, seemed to me not to really understand the advantage of the neighbouring rights for our artists. Culture is what defines a country, what characterizes it. It is what characterizes a people. It is what differentiates it from its neighbour. That is one definition of culture. Maybe those are not the exact terms, but it is the message given early this afternoon by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in her speech. When she gave her definition of culture, she made it clear that it was something which identified us as Canadians.

This is why we are somewhat inclined, unfortunately, we, sovereignists, Quebec separatists, to think that we recognize ourselves and define ourselves better in the Quebec culture than in the Canadian culture, because many things differentiate us from each other. However, since the whole of Canada does not seem to recognize this fundamental fact, we will skip that issue tonight because it is not the object of my speech.

Nevertheless, it is not because we have now introduced neighbouring rights that we are going to send more money to the Americans. Not at all. If Americans are now collecting a lot of money, if we are sending them money, we will no longer do so under neighbouring rights, since the U.U. did not sign the Rome Convention. Neighbouring rights cannot be exchanged between countries which are not signatory states. Accordingly, neighbouring rights are paid only to member countries, so this will not add to the wealth of Americans.

However, one thing could be very important to Canadians. Up to now, except for certain performers like Céline Dion, René Simard, Roch Voisine and a few young ones who have succeeded in making a career in the States, most Quebec artists worked mostly in Quebec. A few made a name for themselves in France, Belgium and the Francophonie, but it is very seldom that Quebec performers achieve an international career, especially singers. In the field of jazz or instrumental music, it is something else altogether. But when French culture is opposed to the English one, it is harder to reach fame.

As for English Canada, it is an excellent opportunity and a great challenge for our anglophone performers and artists to settle an agreement with the Rome Convention countries. They will be faced with an extraordinary challenge because they will have 50 countries in which to take their chance. For instance, instead of singing in the United States where there will be no exchange of neighbouring rights, they could go to England or other signatory states to try to launch a career. This could be a great opportunity for our performers to make themselves known. Introduction of neighbouring rights in this bill must be seen as a great step forward, a great success for the Canadian artistic community, something that will really change their working conditions. Undoubtedly, it will lead to a considerable increase in incomes. Studies show this is a step forward.

It is obvious that our colleague from Medecine Hat, with whom I have already sat on the heritage committee, does not agree, and I have the feeling that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois do not see eye to eye when it comes to culture; we believe in a kind of protectionism in favour of Canadian and Quebec culture in order to prevent the American bulldozer from invading Canada and further ploughing under our culture.

Americans do not share our conception of copyright. They support copyright per se and we are in favour of neighbouring rights. Our approach is much more European, more modern. Americans want to use their money to buy rights and make more money by treating culture the same way they do shoes. They see culture as entertainment, not as something which defines and characterizes us.

Obviously, if one sees culture as they do, one will think that the government is making a mistake by recognizing neighbouring rights. But if one finds self-respect and self-definition in culture, then it is obvious that neighbouring rights were the way to go.

In this area, there is just one small hesitation on the Bloc side; we think the broadcasting lobby was too efficient with the industry minister and that Heritage did not put up sufficient resistance when they discussed the royalties that radio stations would have to pay. They set the limit for annual advertising revenues at $1,250,000. They said nothing about total annual revenues, but considered only the advertising revenues. So they decided to set the limit high enough, at $1,200,000. All those making less will only pay $100 a year in royalties. It is clear we find that amount too high and we would want it reduced considerably; we would prefer a figure in the area of one million dollars instead of $1,250,000.

Therefore, except for that reservation, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the neighbouring right. Now, in the area of private copies, it was high time something was done. I am sure there is not one Canadian or one Quebecer who has never used a blank tape to record something. We listen to programs like La petite vie, which I find very interesting, or to the debates of the House, and we make private copies. Sometimes we hear something interesting on the radio and we quickly press a button to record the wonderful music that is playing. Meanwhile, we are not buying the original works of our artists.

So, it was high time that the government got involved in this area and decided to give a royalty for private copying. We wished it had done so also for video tapes. We know change is very difficult. There is much resistance to change, so we hope the government will be able in the near future to add a small amendment to this bill. This would not cost the government much, but it would allow our artists to make up for all the losses they may incur because of the bad habits we have acquired.

We will work very hard in the heritage committee and within the confines of parliamentary procedure to ensure that the government will consider introducing now a small royalty, even though it could take a number of years for us to get used to that kind of thing. We should come back to these royalties on video tapes and not abandon this sector.

As for the distribution right, we are particularly pleased in the Bloc Quebecois that the government did not overlook it. I remember in committee that David Peterson came to make us aware of the urgency of this problem, which is much more acute in English Canada than in Quebec. Once again, because of the language barrier and the different ways in which publishing houses operate, Quebec was much less vulnerable than English Canada to the invasion of the mega book publishers, which, if this distribution right had not been introduced, could easily have seriously jeopardized English Canada's publishing sector.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore very pleased with this measure, which will make it possible to strengthen the Canadian book industry, and will have an extremely interesting impact on publishing.

This brings me to what is disastrous about the bill. We would really have liked to see the government for once take a strongly positive position right across the board, we would have liked to see that, but the government would have had to refrain from adding to the list of exceptions. There were even, in certain cases, agreements with organizations in the university sector, for example, that were already doing a very good job of managing the full range of use of audiovisual documents or newspaper articles, articles from scientific reviews or chapters of books. In any event, agreements had been reached. Once again, I think the government unfortunately gave in a bit too much to pressure from lobbies.

There is one curious thing, as well, and that is the liberty the government is taking in almost all areas in exempting itself from charges. We saw it this morning, in another bill, where the government is allowing the Department of National Defence not to pay user charges to the new corporation being created to manage air navigation services, and, here again, we see an exhaustive list taking up several pages in the bill-I believe it is 12 pages in the bill-that is concerned strictly with exceptions to this bill.

I think that this was really going too far. It is as though everyone wanted to see his contribution included. It is far too extensive. It is as though the government was deciding to no longer pay the electricity or telephone bills, as though it was exempting itself in all categories.

Maybe it is necessary in order to reduce the size of the budget and the deficit significantly. But they are doing it at the expense of others, at the expense of authors, composers and artists. Unfortunately, as we know, these people's average income is well below the poverty level.

The committee will work very hard, first of all to get an explanation from the government as to how all of this can be justified, and secondly to see what could be eliminated so as to reduce the exemptions to a minimum.

In conclusion, this Bill takes us a few steps forward, a couple of baby steps sideways, and then a giant step backward with all the exceptions there are in it. We are rather uncomfortable with all this, and it leaves a bit of a bad taste in our mouths. Personally, and this is a great rarity for me, I would have liked to have been totally happy with this, but I am a bit confused, torn between happiness and sadness.

The Bloc Quebecois will be working very hard, in the House, on the Heritage Committee, and elsewhere. We will call witnesses, we will take as much time as required to improve this bill. We hope

that a government which has worked so well to date will continue to have an attentive ear for the minimal changes that will have to be made if the bill is to end up being more of a forward step than it is at present. It is perfectible, and I hope that the government will be open to improvements.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to talk specifically to this bill.

I was on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for a time and, a few years ago, I was involved in artistic creation in Quebec as the director of a body promoting Quebec films. I thus was made aware of the importance of the cultural industry for society as a whole, and for Quebec society in particular. It is therefore with great pleasure that I rise today in this debate on Bill C-32 on copyright.

Copyright is the bread and butter, as we say, of our artists. The diet has remained unchanged since 1924, and it is high time it was revitalized, which is what the government is attempting to do after long years of pussyfooting around.

I hope you will allow me to stress the importance of copyright for artists. As we know, the artistic community does not work from nine to five with iron clad working conditions and a pension plan to boot. Quite the opposite is true. Artists have no job security. They depend solely on their talent and on the prevailing economic situation. We can easily assume that most of them often have lean years. It is unfortunate to have to describe our artists' financial situation in such terms.

Statistics confirm our impressions, however. According to data from the Canadian Conference on the Arts, average incomes for 1991 were as follows: fine arts painters, $15,650; craftspeople, $13,156; dancers, $13,757; actors, $21,800; musicians and singers, $13,799.

No life of Riley here. It is easy to see these incomes do not provide enough for a family to live on. We are certainly getting close to the poverty line. In fact, artists are now the least paid workers in Canada.

I think it is important to put these elements in context and, before debating copyright, to reflect upon the financial situation of these people and the importance their work has for society's development.

Having established that artists are not in a privileged financial situation, far from it, I would now like to turn to Bill C-32. This bill makes major changes to the present law.

It establishes neighbouring rights for performers and producers of records. I know that the Bloc québécois has spoken in favour of neighbouring rights and has the firm intention of supporting them. It establishes a remuneration regime allowing fir the copying, for private use, of sound recordings; it establishes a protection of exclusive markets for book distributors in Canada; it changes the copyright and, finally, it changes the law to improve the collective administration and civil remedies.

Much has been written about this bill, which has given rise to a heated debate.

Before going into details, I would like to ask members to remember the very concrete importance of copyright in the life of every artist. This leads me to the loud protests of broadcasters with respect to the new neighbouring rights.

Arguing that they help artists and producers by playing their records on the air, broadcasters have demanded to be exempted from paying compensation to performers and producers. Their logic is strange. One could take it to the ridiculous extreme and say that an artist who performs in public should not be paid since it gives him or her the opportunity of making himself or herself known and then of selling more records.

Broadcasters' concerns deserve to be examined, as those of any other interested party. However, we must not forget that the first purpose of this legislative reform is to allow artists to participate in the economic success of their works. Moreover, future beneficiaries of neighbouring rights, that is performers and record producers, publicly indicated they understood the concerns of broadcasters and were ready to show some flexibility in the implementation of the new system. In such conditions, the goal of the legislation can be reached quite harmoniously while our artists will be protected.

I now wish to address another important aspect of the bill, that is exceptions to copyrights. That is where the shoe pinches, as we say. This aspect is generating a lot of questions and fears. Why? Because the present Copyright Act already contains exceptions to adapt to the needs of users. The general idea behind these exceptions is to achieve a reasonable balance between the rights of creators and the needs of users through exceptions made in the public interest.

For starters, it should be pointed at that existing exceptions are not unanimously accepted. In fact copyright comprises two kinds of complementary rights. The first kind, namely moral rights, recognizes that the author is the owner of the work and consequently of the right to authorize its use under conditions set by the author.

The second kind, economic rights, deals with the right to monitor the economic life of a given work. An exception to copyright is therefore tantamount to expropriation. For the good of the community, the government may decide that, under certain circumstances, an author will not benefit from his work.

Such expropriation is the reason why the SOCAN, the UNEQ, the Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and the Coalition des créateurs et des

titulaires de droits d'auteur, a Quebec group, have been asking for the abolition of these exceptions for a long time.

Their reasoning is quite simple. I will quote UNEQ which said: "It is always the same thing. Why should creators be the only ones to give up their revenues?" You must remember the numbers I gave you a moment ago, they are not astronomical. When you live around the poverty line, you have every right to worry about your future.

And why should they give up their revenues on behalf of schools, libraries, archives, without even being entitled to a charitable donation receipt? Why not require Xerox to supply copiers to schools free of charge and ask Petro Canada to supply them with free heating oil? Why would creators not be entitled to earn a living? Why? The question is very relevant, particularly if you think about the actual income of artists.

Instead of abolishing the exceptions as requested, the government intends to multiply them, almost ad infinitum. There will be 15 pages of exceptions, at the expense of artists. For whose benefit? We ask ourselves what pressures made the government yield, what lobby intervened, because the government is now ready to penalize the artists it claims it wants to protect.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage said today that she wanted to protect the livelihood of artists and to make sure they get some compensation for their work. I do not think the new bill is in line with that statement. There is reason to question that. The reaction to Bill C-32 in this regard was quite strong, and appropriately so. My colleagues and I will come back to the details of these exceptions during subsequent debates.

For now, however, I am asking the government: What is the reason for all those exceptions? Why is the government introducing a bill with 15 pages of exemptions in it if, like the Canadian Conference of the Arts has said, respect for the principle of free negotiation inherent to copyright involves the elimination of all exemptions in the protection of works?

I urge the government to bear in mind the arguments of the artists, who are the main stakeholders. This bill must meet their needs, both financial and moral. If artists do not survive, our cultural industry will not either.

I would like to remind the House of the position of UNEQ, a member of the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners. It said it will not introduce more exemptions. This organization is asking the government to eliminate all exemptions. It believes that having more exemptions for educational institutions in this bill is a direct threat to the group licenses already agreed upon by UNEQ.

I would like to give a few examples of what I have just said. Talking about licenses, I know UNEQ has had negotiations about

photocopies made by the government. My colleague was telling us a moment ago that it may be a way for the government to avoid paying certain royalties to creators. The licence negotiated by the federal government for its newspaper clipping service and copies represents a total of $80,750 in royalties that are distributed to journalists. The proposed bill would take away these royalties from artists and creators. The government would no longer pay these royalties. And that is just one example. I know several other licences were issued and will adversely affect authors and creators.

Therefore, I ask the government to be receptive to the unanimous point of view expressed by the Union des écrivains et des écrivaines, UQAM, SOCAM and all the stakeholders from the artistic community, regarding these exceptions.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, when the House had to vote on the bill to implement the WTO agreements, we had to look, among other things, at the federal Copyright Act. At the time, we were stunned to see how obsolete and outdated the legislation was.

If I am not mistaken, it had been almost 50 years since the act had been last reviewed. It is a good thing the government, through its heritage minister, proposes to update this legislation, to provide better protection to authors and performers, so that the artists who make culture a central element in our country, particularly in Quebec, can finally get a return on their work.

We must not think that Canada is an innovator, since at least fifty countries have already granted their creators the recognition of these neighbouring rights. Of course-and I will have something to say about exceptions-every time a government introduces a piece of legislation granting rights or recognizing new rights for a class of workers, it has to be understood that there are reactions from people from which some privileges are removed.

I totally agree with my colleague from Québec that there should be no exception to this rule. I think that artists, through the sacrifice they made of the rights they should have recovered over the last years, have already done more than their fair share for economic development.

My colleague from Québec mentioned broadcasters, universities, colleges, schools, municipalities, people writing to complain that now they will have to pay. Of course they will have to pay; they did not pay for 50 years, so it is only normal that they pay now.

I would like to ask the hon. member the following question: Why should the government not apply in this case the sacrosanct principle this government has been advocating for a number of years, the user pay principle? All of a sudden, we find that the

government, which pays lip service to this fine principle, is introducing all kinds of exceptions. Earlier today, we passed Bill C-20 on the privatization of air navigation control services. We saw the government go against its own user pay principle when it said that National Defence should not pay for using these services. Now it is coming up with a series of exceptions.

As soon as we open up exceptions, we can add indefinitely to the list. That is why I ask: Why does the government not apply the user pay principle in this case?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, I also wonder why the government does not follow suit and set an example. If we know the living conditions of our artists, if we wish to recognize their efforts and their work, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated so well today, why does the government not set an example and exclude itself from these exemptions? Considering that the federal government uses $80,000 worth of press clippings, artists and authors will thus be deprived of the royalties which they are owed. I totally agree with my colleague.

Women will also pay for the federal deficit, as we have learned in the UI bill, and artists could have to pay too.

So, if the government is sincere with its bill, before passing it, it will listent to the various stakeholders. It may listen to a special interest group, but it could lend an ear to the main stakeholders, such as the artists, and for once be attentive to their demands.

Given that an artist earns from $13,000 to $20,000 at most, it cannot be said that he makes a decent living out of his work. Our artists reflect all our society. They talk about our culture, celebrate our culture, and give plays about our culture, so we could perhaps encourage them by passing a good bill and prevent such expensive exemptions. Given these 15 pages of exemptions, the bill is full of loopholes.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, to the astonishment of the whip of the Liberal Party, the Bloc members still have some things to say about this bill, because it deals with culture.

As sovereignist Quebecers, we believe that culture plays an important role in the development of Quebec society. Even if the bill before us was introduced by the federal government, we still find it relevant. As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert reminded us, the time had come to follow up on the demands of the authors, creators, performers, all those who work on the cultural scene, the theatre people, the musicians, the writers.

It is extremely important for us, Quebecers, to have a legislation better suited to today's situation. This is also very important to us because our market is quite small. Quebec's territory may be large, but it is not always densely populated. That is why performers who become professional have the right, I think, to get the most from their high quality work, which is why, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I insisted on taking part in this debate.

I also noticed the interest shown by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert and, before him, by the hon. member for Quebec. They all come from the Quebec capital region, which is recognized and renowned for its cultural talents but which often loses its artists to other regions because of a poor standard of living or meagre retribution. We are all proud of Céline Dion, but not all artists are lucky enough to make a break on such a big market.

Therefore, this legislation is welcome. However, it has flaws that were mentioned by those who spoke before me. It must be said, however, that Bill C-32 is the second step of a review of the Copyright Act, which is almost 50 years old and which was amended in 1988. It had its shortcomings then and it still does.

We must remember that this bill provides a way to protect performers' and producers' neighbouring rights. A remuneration regime is also established in relation to the private copying of sound recordings and charges are imposed to manufacturers of blank cassettes. Exclusive distributors of books in Canada will be protected. A number of exceptions are added where no royalties or neighbouring rights can be claimed. And this is an aspect on which we have serious doubts, not enough, however, to vote against the bill, but enough for the Bloc Quebecois to argue in committee in favour of several amendments. We also want to propose amendments to existing legislation for improved collective management and civil remedies.

Neighbouring rights are rights that are recognized for recording artists and producers of sound recordings. Now, when radio stations air the works of these artists, the authors and composers receive royalties, but not the artists and producers.

In this bill, it is also provided that every radio station will benefit from a preferential rate of $100 on the first $1,250,000 of promotional sales. This means that, up to this amount, small radio stations will pay only $100. We think this is not enough.

Now there is the issue of exceptions. It is true that some community organizations made a case and that we cannot remain insensitive to their claims.

But as it is presently written, the bill provides for new exceptions. It does not provides for limitations, it adds exceptions. In this sense, it is not a step in the right direction. We will have to make adjustments here. The Copyright Act already provides for a few exceptions.

At present, there are exceptions concerning the use of any work for the purposes of private study or research; for the purposes of criticism, review or newspaper summary, if the source is mentioned; for the making or publishing of paintings and drawings; for publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, intended for use in schools, of short passages from published literary works in which copyright subsists. Bill C-32 adds many more exceptions for schools, libraries, museums and archive services.

To the exceptions already in existence, the bill adds, among others, the permission to use or make a copy of a work for the purposes of assignments or examinations; to make a copy of a work if its support is not of an adequate quality; to perform in public; to transmit sound recordings, television or radio programs by telecommunications within an educational institution; to make a copy of news programs; to make a copy of different programs and to retransmit them in educational institutions; the reproduction by libraries, museums, archives of works for the purposes of conservation; the permission for museums, archives and libraries to photocopy newspapers and magazines under certain conditions for their clients; the permission for museums, archives and libraries to do the above authorized work for other institutions.

It releases libraries, museums, schools and archives from their responsability for the reproduction of works made by individuals with their photocopiers. This means that a small sign will be put on photocopiers to ask people not to infringe on copyright.

It is like saying to someone in a library: "Please do not steal that bookM". I saw that once in a municipal library, and I was impressed. Well intentioned people, no doubt, had written, as a first rule: "Stealing is strictly forbidden". I found that extraordinary. This measure is similar.

We are saying to people that they can use the books and the photocopier, but that they should not use them in any way that would infringe upon copyright, of writers in this case. This shows how far the law goes. It shows the intent to legislate, but it also shows that we do not have the means to enforce the legislation.

An act can be very good, but if it is unenforceable and comes to rely exclusively on self-discipline, what use is it? That clause appears unbelievable to me. We should really amend it to avoid losing credibility.

What do Quebec writers and artists say? They were very disappointed by the exceptions provided. They say these exceptions are contrary to the spirit of the legislation, which is to protect copyrights and not deprive their owners of what legitimately belongs to them. They think that the legislator should have left users and collective societies negotiate the use of works, as is done with the Quebec Ministry of Education and the Government of Canada.

Since liberalization is pretty much in the air these days-no, dear colleague, not in the partisan meaning of the word-why not let people negotiate according to the market value principle? Those in favour of that principle should apply it to everybody, including artists.

I repeat, the great majority of artists do not earn millions. Sometimes people see Céline Dion or other big international stars and think that all artists are rich. Some have a few good years but like in the National Hockey League, careers are short. It is the same thing with the Liberal federal members-for example the government whip-whose career could very well be short. But that is another story.

In the interest of artists in Quebec and in Canada-I am sometimes told to stir up emotions in this House-we must reiterate our commitment and our sense of responsibility towards artists and writers.

Again, and I will conclude on this note, it is also important for francophones in Ontario. When I worked in that province with the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, I met excellent artists who will be very happy with the objectives of this bill. As for the means to achieve these objectives, this bill lacks teeth.

Before somebody breaks my neck, I will stop and make myself available for questions.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The recorded division stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. Wednesday, June 5.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I now wish to seek unanimous consent to further defer the said vote until Tuesday, June 11 at 5.30 p.m.