This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

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

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Restigouche—Chaleur New Brunswick

Liberal

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

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 36 with the following: c ) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under subsection (1) or (5) and the manner and form in which the information is to be kept; and''

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 23 on page 37 with the following:

"(5) Where an archive requires the consent of the copyright owner to copy an unpublished work deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this section but is unable to locate the owner, the archive may copy the work in accordance with subsection (3).

(6) The archive must make a record of any copy made under subsection (5), and keep it available for public inspection, as prescribed.

(7) It is not an infringement of copyright for an archive to make a copy, in accordance with subsection (3), of any"

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 14 on page 37.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 22 on page 37 with the following:

"(6) The archive may make a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this section unless the author of the work advises the archive in writing that the work is not to be copied except where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case the archive may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification."

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the government has proposed a very interesting change in MotionNo. 13. It certainly is a massive improvement over what was contained in the proposed legislation and the legislation coming out of committee.

Of all the people who contacted my office-and perhaps this is true of the Liberal and Bloc offices-the people who were the most concerned about the copyright legislation, believe it or not, were not the people who were concerned about the collectives and not

the people who were concerned about the money aspects of neighbouring rights and so on. The greatest outcry of concern seemed to come from the people who were concerned about access to geneology.

We do not want to beat the issue to death. The reality is that only this morning we received a number of these motions, this one included. We have not had an opportunity to seriously digest what the government is attempting to achieve.

I give the government at least a passing grade in that it has made a very significant improvement to the legislation as proposed. For the reason that we created our own proposed amendment, Motion No. 15, we feel very comfortable with it. We think it would achieve what the people concerned about these issues, the archivists and the genealogists, want to achieve.

As we said before, though, in the arduous process we have been through we have heard from a lot of people and there has been a lot of discussion. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary would agree with me, but this is a relatively substantive amendment. It is a major clarification of what was contained in the proposed legislation. It begs the question, if that is the case, as to why we did not have something of this nature prior to this point.

Clearly we have a badly flawed process and a badly flawed bill, particularly in light of the fact there was so much concern on the part of genealogists and people concerned about the issue who were coming into the offices of all members involved in Bill C-32.

The whole issue of following geneology, following family trees and recording history, is something that has come into focus but not into vogue. I do not want to say vogue because that sounds stylish. It certainly has come into focus for a lot of people around the world.

Last summer when I was in England I had the good fortune of tracing my father's heritage. I tried to get my hands on documents over there. I looked through the various databanks. It was personally rewarding. To that extent I understand people who are keen on the idea of geneology.

To be very precise, our amendment to the proposed legislation states:

The archive may make a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited in the archive before coming into force of this section unless the author of the work advises the archive in writing that the work is not to be copied-

I am not a lawyer but as the legislation was explained it was to create a situation where there would be a bank of information that would simply not be available to people for 50 or 60 years.

We want to make sure there is not an undue infringement of copyright of people's writings. On the other side of the coin there must be structured access to any legitimate request for copies for information purposes of the archive and for purposes of geneology.

It continues:

-except where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case the archive may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.

People were explaining to me that there would be a problem because many people do this as a hobby. As a result it is not revenue producing. As a matter of fact it is probably revenue spender.

The ability to be able to transmit information, either by E-mail or by fax, and the ability to make a photocopy of that information, place it into a fax machine or scan it into a computer, is a very important issue. I am not sure it will be handled with the same liberalism in Motion No. 13.

It will be interesting over the next period of time to see the input we will receive from the people who are concerned about these issues, assuming that the government will force through Motion No. 13 and not vote in favour of our Motion No. 15.

This speaks to the whole issue of the availability of information to concerned people. It speaks to the whole issue that the Reform Party has been attempting to drive home all day, that we must have a balance between the people who have a legitimate use for control of their creation and the people who want to have access to that information.

It would have been most helpful if the government had not at the 11th hour-as a matter of fact it was past midnight-come forward with the amendment. That really is an unfortunate part of the process. If the government motion had been out in the public domain and if we could have received responses from people who are concerned about the issues of geneology and the retrieval of archival information, we would have been able to vote with more intelligence on the government motion. We would have been able to decide whether it would do the job.

As a consequence, it would be my recommendation to my colleagues in the Reform Party that we vote in favour of Motion No. 15. We have crafted that motion with the help of legal services. We believe it will achieve the objective we want to achieve.

Unless there is some time between the debate, now that this is out in the public domain, and the opportunity for concerned people to have their say on the issue, we will be inclined to vote against the government amendment. We will be very happy to change our position if the people concerned about these things have an opportunity to give us their input.

We have said this again and again all day and probably on the next group of motions I will be saying it again. This is a process which is designed to protect the creators of work, whoever those creators are and whatever their work may be. It will give them protection. At the same time it will give people the freedom to use

it so they will be encouraged to generate more work. That is really what the bill is about.

Because of that, although this is a partisan House and many parts of this debate are partisan, the bill should be non-partisan. It should reflect the values of all Canadians in a very technical way. It is not an emotional issue like many of the hot button issues we get into in the House. We are trying to create a balance.

I hope the government will do its part. We will do our part to distribute the government's wording. We will elicit input from people concerned about these issues so we can vote intelligently when the time comes to vote on these motions.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Just before I recognize the hon. member on his point of order, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadowlake-Railways.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a motion moved this morning by the Minister of Labour. I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 318(2), which is based on a ruling of July 14, 1977. It states:

A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion-

If you will review the video and the audio tapes you will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour clearly called out point of order and the Speaker clearly recognized him on a point of order. While on that point of order the minister moved a time allocation motion on Bill C-66.

For a more recent ruling on this matter, I refer to a Speaker's ruling of November 20, 1996 at page 6503 of Hansard . The Speaker then ruled that there is only one kind of motion which can be moved on a point of order. He said:

In fact, there is only one motion that can be made on a point of order and that is the motion that was made by the member for St. Albert.

The motion that the member for St. Albert moved was:

That the member for Medicine Hat be now heard.

That being the only motion that can be moved on a point of order, the minister's motion for time allocation cannot be accepted because he violated the rules of the House. These rules must be followed to the letter because they are the only protection that the minority in the House has against the tyranny of the majority.

The minister was clearly out of order in moving his motion to cut off debate on Bill C-66 and I ask that you rule on this point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. colleague was kind enough to give me notice of this point of order. I have been attempting to get the blues with respect to the points he just made.

I am told by persons who were here this morning that the member is absolutely right that the words point of order were used by the Minister of Labour when he stood and moved closure. The member's point is one I raised earlier as a member.

I am also led to believe, unless somebody can correct me, that the matter has been voted upon. Any member is obliged to raise that point at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the precise point about using the words point of order was not raised at the time, the matter has now been disposed of by a vote in the House.

It is not as we say in Latin void ab initio, which means that it goes back like in a bigamist marriage and the matter becomes defective because you were married at the time of the second marriage. The matter was cleansed, if I can used that word, by the fact that nobody objected at the time the vote was held and the matter proceeded.

I should hear from any other member wishing to speak on that point.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, not within the minute but within minutes the member for Lethbridge came in and addressed the Chair. He tried to correct that at the earliest possible moment. It was not in the crush of the yeas, the nays, the deferred vote and so on. It was, however, done at the earliest possible minute.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it takes a minute or two to get Beauchesne's out and crack open the section. Maybe some do but I certainly do not have it memorized. It takes at least a minute or two in order to get that book open and find the reference. It was brought to the attention of the Chair but it was not really dealt with or addressed as much as you have addressed it here.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would reconsider in light of the fact that after it was raised the Speaker ruled on the acceptability of when the motion was moved. Perhaps the point was not clear at the time because our complaint was not when the motion was moved but how the motion was moved. In other words, it was during Government Orders but it was on a point of order, not to rise in his place. There is a significant difference.

The timing was fine. I do not have a problem with the timing. The problem was how the minister rose to his feet and how he brought that motion forward. He brought it forward in a clearly inappropriate manner.

The Chair initially ruled on the when, not the how. It is the how that was the problem. The inappropriateness was really what the member for Lethbridge was trying to get out of the Chair at the time. We did bring that up at the earliest possible moment.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Chamber at the time of the motion this morning. The Speaker was seized with it this morning. She consulted with the clerk and she made a ruling. There was another point of order this afternoon. You have since made a ruling. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I would say to you that the matter is closed.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The reason for the delay on the part of the Reform Party is that we also had to review the tape.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I listened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Although I was not here, I believe the question that was raised concerned at which time the motion was being moved, whether it was under Government Orders or under motions. That matter was ruled on by the Speaker.

The question of the fact that the minister had apparently used the words point of order was not dealt with at that time, and accordingly it is too late now to raise those words as words that somehow obviated what had gone on at the time.

Therefore I have to move on. I realize the House is not sitting tomorrow so I do not think I should reserve on that matter.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, act to amend the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

March 13th, 1997 / 4:30 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amending of clause 18 of Bill C-32 by replacing lines 15 to 22 on page 37. Our replacement reads that:

The archive may make a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this section unless the author of the work advises the archive in writing that the work is not to be copied except where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case the archive may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.

Many members on this committee have toiled with improving this massive document which deals with amendments to the Copyright Act. They must all know that deficiencies and imbalances still exist within this document, not the least of which is the section dealing with archives. As it stands now the bill is unrealistic and unreflective of the input and representation to the contrary that came before the committee.

I have received numerous representations on this element of the bill. One of my constituents who is a genealogist/archivist made a written submission to the committee on this restrictive section,Ms. Judy Norberg of Campbell River, British Columbia. Her representation characterized the issues of accessibility and freedom of information in Bill C-32 as truly regressive and a definite step backward for the work of genealogists. Without the right to photocopy unpublished documents the hands of thousands of students, historians and genealogists will be effectively tied.

The amendment before us unties this restrictive section and is reflective of conscious and realistic thought on behalf of that sector of the population that requires access to unpublished information.

As it stands now, those individuals who help all Canadians to better understand their history, their origins, their background, those people chronicling our history are at a severe disadvantage if the bill sits the way it is right now.

It is not possible for everyone to take advantage, for example, of in person viewing at an archival facility. We are all at a deficient position if this amendment before us is not supported by the House.

During committee some amendments were adopted that will benefit archivists and genealogists. Archivists are now allowed to make a copy of an unpublished work for research or private study under specified conditions.

These conditions differ according to date of deposit and the date of the author's death. For example, copies would be made of archival material deposited when the bill is proclaimed in force and whose author had died over 50 years previous to proclamation date. These dates, however, are overly onerous. There are some things that could be fixed there.

Reform feels further refinement and amendment is sought by archivists and genealogists to better reflect their need for better access and authorization to use certain documents which would really be of no consequence to the rest of the world.

It is not like this would somehow infringe on other people. It is a productive, constructive arrangement. In our view, it is not an infringement of copyright for either an archivist or a person acting under the authority of an archive to make copies for research or

private study of a work that is contained in an unpublished forum. However, the bill without this amendment would prevent this.

There is currently a fair use provision for published works. Access to non-published works is essential for archivists and genealogists in their research of family historical records for example.

The bill originally created tremendous restrictions for archivists, historians and genealogists. Amendments have improved the original bill but the conditions of the current bill still leave these researchers concerned because they would not have unfettered access to archival material such as is provided in jurisdictions outside Canada.

While some of the improvements have been made to the bill, it is essential to not hamstring archivists for making a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited into the archive before the coming into force of clause 6, unless the author of the work advises the archive it is not to be copied.

The amendment we are putting forth also states where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case, the archivist may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.

Genealogists are concerned that genealogists and family history researchers have uninhibited access to study, extract and copy archival material whether published or unpublished as part of their research efforts.

They have a concern that this bill places severe limits on rights of reproduction which would have the effect of depriving major sections of the population of this country access to the information required to learn about their Canadian backgrounds and thus inhibit the chronicling of our nation's history.

I feel that this amendment ensures that archivists and genealogists are allowed to practice their profession or hobby. It is not threatening intellectual property. It also ensures that all Canadians will benefit from a better understanding of our roots, heritage and history. I would urge all my colleagues to move forthwith and support this amendment.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 12.

All those in favour will please say yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 12 agreed to.)

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.