House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.

Topics

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

There are 60 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-32.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 8, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 50, 51 and 52

Group No. 3: Motion No. 4

Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 6, 44 and 60.

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57

Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 12 to 15.

Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 16, 38, 58 and 59

Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 40 and 41

Group No. 9: Motion No. 45

Group No. 10: Motions Nos. 47, 53, 55 and 56.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49 to the House.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to withdraw a number of amendments that I have proposed. The government tabled its amendments this morning and they cover several areas in which I had made requests. Unfortunately, I could not do this until today when the government tabled its amendments.

I would like to withdraw Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The hon. member has withdrawn all her motions.

(Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18 withdrawn)

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Restigouche—Chaleur New Brunswick

Liberal

Guy Arseneault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 23 to 25 on page 2 with the following:

"wise include a copy made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where the copy was made;"

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 30 with the following:

"with motive of gain."

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 25 and 26 on page 33 with the following:

"shall, in addition, mark the copy in the manner prescribed by"

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 35 with the following:

"if the newspaper or periodical was published more than one year before the copy is made."

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 10 and 11 on page 36 with the following:

"who is one of its patrons, but the copy given to the patron must not be in digital form."

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-32, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 18 to 21 on page 42 with the following:

"droit d'auteur le fait pour une personne agissant à la demande d'une personne ayant une déficience perceptuelle, ou pour un organisme sans but lucratif agissant dans l'intérêt de cette dernière, de se livrer à l'une des activités suivantes:"

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 53 with the following:

"ferred to in section 67 may only make"

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing, in the English version, a ) lines 28 and 29 on page 54 with the following:

"has reproduced the work, a maximum" b ) line 34 on page 54 with the following: a ) under any agreement entered into with''

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 69 with the following:

"in section 67 shall, on or before the"

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Madam Speaker, is it necessary when withdrawing motions to require unanimous consent of the House to withdraw those motions?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

They are just motions and they are the possession of the hon. member until they are moved. Therefore she can withdraw them.

We also have Motion No. 48 in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona who is not here.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Madam Speaker, we have an unfortunate situation with a very ill member who has not able to attend the House today for the debate.

I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House for the motions presented in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona to be moved by the member for Kootenay East, our critic in the area who is leading the debate for our party. Would there be unanimous consent for those motions to have been deemed moved and seconded?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB

Madam Speaker, before giving consent, I understand the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is ill. We accept that point. I hope the same spirit of co-operation the government is showing will prevail. We would not be in favour of many of those amendments and by not agreeing to the consent it would be a very easy way of disposing of them.

For the sake of debate and under the circumstances we would agree. We hope the same consideration and co-operation will be shown during the debate and that there will not be any attempt to delay the bill unduly today.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is there unanimous consent?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 43 on page 71, and lines 1 to 37 on page 72.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Restigouche—Chaleur New Brunswick

Liberal

Guy Arseneault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 6 on page 72 with the following:

"royalties, in respect of each of the first three"

Madam Speaker, I do not plan to debate this grouping at any length because it mostly involves technical amendments by the government with regard to technical language and whether the French and English versions correspond.

I have a few remarks to make about the bill in general. Bill C-32 has gathered some publicity in the hearings and in public. The government the bill is balanced. It takes into consideration the creators and the users. It went before committee where there were many witnesses. We received almost 200 briefs. I am sure members of the committee received an equal number of letters touching on the bill.

I take this opportunity to single out the role of the committee in this regard. Considering the way the bill was handled members of all parties exhibited consistency in the committee hearings. The members showed up consistently, asked quality questions, listened to the witnesses and dealt with some issues. There was a lot of movement from the beginning of the hearings to the end. I congratulate members from all parties.

All the amendments in Group No. 1 are technical amendments. Some are consequential and result from changes made by the standing committee. We made many amendments and might have missed a little word here or there along the way. Other amendments are required to maintain consistency between the English and the French texts.

I will not discuss these amendments in detail. These amendments concern technicalities. I can assure you that the government support these amendments, and I believe that, if opposition members take a close look at them, they will see that these are only technical amendments.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Madam Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I rise to speak today as official opposition critic for heritage and culture. I am proud because this is a bill which sets politics aside and addresses copyright. It addresses the moral and economic rights of creators over their works.

I would remind members that Bill C-32 is the second stage in an effort to update a law drafted in 1924, which was amended for the first time in 1988. This bill affects creators and authors who have waited years to see their rights finally modernized and brought into

line with the economic and cultural activities of modern society, including the use of new technologies.

In 1988, phase I of the bill, the review phase, extended copyright protection to computer programs. It also gave creators additional moral rights over their works. In addition, it modernized the Copyright Appeal Board, now known as the Copyright Board.

Finally, in 1988, an extremely pivotal development took place: collective societies were recognized. There was recognition of the right of authors and creators to be represented by an organization that, through its efforts, would oversee the use of authors' and creators' works, collect royalties and levies and distribute them to artists. This recognition of collective societies is becoming important. We will see in the latest phase, Bill C-32, how this collective society was an issue when the bill was being studied.

Between 1988 and 1994, there were several amendments to the Copyright Act so that the government could meet its obligations under the free trade agreements, NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

Finally, last April, the government, in response to pressure from the official opposition, tabled Bill C-32 in phase II of the review process and, in so doing, introduced some new and very important rights called neighbouring rights, which are granted to performers and producers. Performers' rights had not yet been recognized, although they are recognized in 50 countries which signed what is known as the Rome Convention. Canada dragged its feet but finally decided in the course of this session to table this bill and introduce neighbouring rights.

It also set up what is referred to as a private copying compensation system. When the committee held its hearings, many groups came to submit their briefs and talk to committee members. As we all know, tape-recording for personal use is common practice. Even the Consumers' Association of Canada agreed. Everyone copies music and songs on tapes. Everyone records tapes, people pass them along, and so forth. Everyone agreed this was common practice.

In its bill, the government introduced a compensation system for private copying, which finally recognizes the rights of creators and authors by collecting a levy directly from the manufacturer. This levy will be redistributed as a kind of basic salary among all creators and authors, which we think is only fair. Later on I will tell you how many millions of dollars performers lose as a result of pirating alone.

The bill also establishes book distribution rights for Canada, thereby strengthening the position of our book distributors, which is most welcome as a way to protect our culture. Finally, it improves procedures with respect to the avenues of legal recourse available to performers and to the applicable sanctions in case of fraud or if users refuse to comply with the law and pay royalties to the authors and creators who need this income to survive.

The average performer's salary is between $7,000 and $14,000, depending on whether the performer is a performing artist, a singer, a composer, an author or something else.

So this was a much needed improvement. However, there was a big black cloud hovering over this bill: the exceptions.

When copyright legislation is drafted so that authors and creators can make a living wage by collecting royalties, that is fine. But when the bill goes on to explain for pages and pages that authors and creators are not entitled to royalties in the case of cegeps, colleges, educational institutions, libraries, and many other sectors that are exempted from paying copyright, I think this is a very black cloud indeed. I will get back to this later on when we consider the amendments.

Bill C-32, phase II, is most welcome. It is welcomed by the entire artistic community, particularly in the case of neighbouring rights, by performers, including Quebec performers, whose work is played in francophone countries and who receive no royalties because Canada is not one of the 50 signatories of the Rome Convention.

With respect to neighbouring rights, let us recall that the Bloc Quebecois had called upon the government to table this bill and made a commitment to support it, provided it made specific reference to neighbouring rights.

We have respected that commitment and will continue today to support the government's bill, with its extremely important dimension for all artists: neighbouring rights.

As for private copying, and all this piracy using blank tapes, let us recall that what the government is introducing in the bill is a royalty charged directly to the manufacturer, which eventually becomes a salary for the artists.

This measure will enable artists, who are literally being robbed by illegal copying, to receive what is termed a fair share of what is owed to them.

I would like to remind you that, throughout the committee stage, the Bloc Quebecois brought in a series of amendments. I wish to congratulate my committee colleagues, for we accomplished a huge task. First of all, we received, heard and exchanged views with over 65 groups, who came to testify before the committee. I must say that all of my colleagues on the committee listened to the evidence and asked questions with a very open mind, particularly in the search to enhance the objectives of the bill. I wish to again congratulate them on their work in committee.

I would, however, like to draw the government's attention to the amendments presented by the Bloc, and to point out that it would be important to support the amendments we are presenting at the report stage, simply because they concern the interests of authors and creators, not the political interests of one party, but the interests of authors and creators.

I invite the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party fully acknowledges the necessity of the revisions for the Copyright Act. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party would be very supportive of a well thought out process which would achieve that objective. Unfortunately this bill does not represent that well thought out approach.

The bill was initially tabled on April 23, 1996. It had second reading on June 4, 1996 and there was a briefing meeting with officials from industry and heritage on June 18, 1996. It was at that meeting that we had our first indication that the bill, indeed this entire effort on the part of the heritage minister, was in great trouble.

There were a number of questions that I had posed at that briefing meeting that it seemed to me the officials, with all due respect, were completely unprepared for. Many parts of the bill, unfortunately, had not been thought through at all.

When the minister made her presentation to the committee, which I believe was in September 1996, she was basically working from briefing notes and had not grasped the implications or the problems which the bill she was proposing would create both for the creators and for the users of the work that comes under copyright legislation.

The process, unfortunately, went further off track in my judgment in that the committee also decided, against my protestations, to have the selection of witnesses in camera. There was a deletion of concerned parties to the bill. There was a period of time when there was a tremendous amount of unhappiness about that.

I must say that during the process of the crammed committee hearings there developed a tremendous spirit of co-operation among the members of the committee.

As with the member who spoke before me, I would like to pay tremendous respect to the members of the committee from all parties who worked in that spirit of co-operation. I would particularly like to say that the work of the parliamentary secretary and the work of the chair of the committee aided the process, and I commend them for that.

It was unfortunate that the spirit of co-operation, although it was leading to a very productive process of making necessary changes and improvements to the bill, ended up being seriously side tracked. As a matter of fact, it was fully derailed in a massive train wreck by the heritage minister.

It seems to me that basically what happened was she came to the conclusion that since becoming heritage minister she really had not accomplished anything and suddenly decided-

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of co-operation and in the spirit of the rules and regulations of the House the hon. member has some flexibility. However, to openly get into a debate and criticize other hon. members of the House with respect to the process I do not believe is fair. I do not think that is called for at report stage. It is more of a political debate and I think we should address ourselves to what is on the table.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Madam Speaker, what I am trying to say is that the process we are now in, unfortunately, is being driven by the government and the procedures of the House. Opposition members have to have their motions in place by 6.00 p.m. the day prior to debate at report stage whereas, by virtue of the standing rules, the government only has to show the motions at the very last minute.

I would like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen dated December 13, 1996 concerning our situation in committee: ``However, because most of the amendments were only circulated to committee members and not to the media or a room full of lawyers and lobbyists that have been following this bill since April, exact details will not be known until February, heritage officials said on Thursday''.

With deference to the parliamentary secretary I will try to defuse this simply by quoting what Michael McCabe, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said on Thursday. He said last minute amendments could cost his industry $6 million or more and accused the heritage minister of going back on her word and so on and so forth.

The point is I have seen for the very first time in my short parliamentary career since 1993 a committee and a process that was working and was being productive. I have commended all the members as well as the people who came and the officials of the respective departments. This should be an non-partisan issue. This should be a non-partisan bill because it has so much impact on so many people in Canada.

However, the fact that there were last minute amendments, the fact that there were behind the curtain discussions between certain people in that committee process, the fact that only this morning were we made aware of the number of changes being proposed by the government, this basically creates a situation where this bill is so badly fouled up and flawed that I do not see we are ever going to make any sense of it.

Furthermore, if we are going to patch this bill back together at all we simply must have more time to digest what the government has brought forward. We simply must have more time to have intelligent debate on this issue. It is far too important to far too many Canadians.

As a consequence, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

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

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

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

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Call in the members.

After the taking of the vote: