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

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honour the many speakers from all parties who stood in support of my Bill C-214.

It shows what the House can be with all members working together for the common objectives of better visibility and better accountability of how governments spend. It empowers people.

The last time I rose was in the first hour of debate on the bill. I would like to mention some organizations that support it. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the auditor general. He stated:

We share your views that the cost of government programs and operations should be made more visible to Parliament and taxpayers.

Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada also support it.

I would like to read a final comment from a letter that I received since the last time I was on my feet. It is from the Canadian

Institute of Chartered Accountants annual letter to the finance minister. It states:

We believe that government must provide cost information and analysis prior to making decisions that affect the delivery of existing programs or initiating new programs. We believe that this cost information should be made available to the public in order to foster greater awareness of government spending.

A private member's bill such as 214 that has been brought forward calls for the departments of governments to provide for financial or cost analysis of each piece of legislation on its introduction. In this way government would be more conscious of the financial impact that legislation would have and a greater scrutiny of government spending would be provided to the general public.

We urge the federal government to ensure speedy passage of this bill.

On my way to the House this morning I heard a program on the CBC that talked about gambling. It occurred to me that quite often when individual members of the House rise to vote on various pieces of legislation that is what we are doing. We are gambling but we are not using our money. We are using taxpayers' money.

The bottom line is that we have developed a system of taxation that is not consensual. The history of taxation, while some people at home might have a big yawn, is really quite fascinating. It goes back to the time of the Romans and others who tried to implement taxation systems.

The one important thing about a taxation system that starts to fall apart is the day when people do not believe they consented to be taxed.

In its simplistic form, when taxation first came into existence people could see what they were getting. They would invest in roads, local schools and services they communally decided to invest in and which they benefited from.

When people look at their paycheques today, at the gross figure and the net, they do not understand the difference. Worst than that, many of those people do not believe they were part of the process that made the decision for that level of taxation.

As a result people generally have a negative attitude toward government. They do not figure they are part of the process. They cannot control it. They cannot control the money that is leaving their wallets. They become cynical. Generally the electorate is cynical.

The legislation is trying to let these people back into the loop so that they can be part of the process of change and can feel they are a part of the consensual process. Then they can say they understand how much it will cost and whether it is a good thing. It would let them have their say.

Most important, it would empower members of Parliament in the Chamber who represent those people to make those decisions. In the case they do not want to make them themselves we would have the proper power to do that.

In closing, this is not a new concept. We have estimates from Australia and other countries. It is a matter of simply putting those numbers in a bill, allowing the people in and shedding a bit of light on the government process in Ottawa.

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yes.

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

Program Cost Declaration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 to 59.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has eight minutes remaining in his intervention.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK

Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted I was making reference to the fact that many small radio stations depend rather heavily on their libraried material, which can be in several different formats depending on how old the station is.

The legislation with its lack of considerations for transfer of format does not recognize advances in technology. As a matter of fact it penalizes radio stations that might want to advance their technology. It is somewhat like the weavers of Manchester breaking up the steam looms. We are moving into the 21st century but the government does not recognize that. The anti-technological biases of the Minister of Heritage being well known, I am not terribly surprised by it.

The other question regarding ephemeral rights refers to the length of time people will be allowed to maintain material in their files before it has to be destroyed or at least not used. The 30 days

proposed is preposterously short. Six months, which is what the industry requested, would have been quite reasonable.

I would like to read a letter received from the Kiwanis Club of Pembroke, Ontario. It may cast some light on how this lack of reasonable time shift will affect some of the charitable ventures that rely upon broadcast. I will read it in its entirety.

The Kiwanis Club's efforts to ensure continued Easter Seal benefits for the children in our community, could be seriously jeopardized by provisions in the new Copyright bill currently being debated in Ottawa.

Dennis Runge, Chairman, said today that he is sure that it is just an oversight by the Members of Parliament, who have no idea that the fund-raising telethons Easter Seals have so successfully held with CHRO TV over the years could be really harmed by some small exceptions which have inexplicably been omitted from this proposed bill.

Runge explained that the problem is with the entertainment portions of the broadcast, which are so important in attracting viewers. "CHRO has told us that under the proposed Copyright Bill, they could be fined, or else have to pay additional costs and undertake a major effort to clear the rights, just for taping local performers a few weeks ahead of the broadcast, and then playing it back during the telethon".

The Kiwanis Club believes that if it loses the ability to showcase these entertainers, the broadcast will suffer. And, if either they or CHRO TV have to pay a second time just for the necessity to tape and playback these performances, the costs will add to the telethon budget, and not as much money will be able to be directed into Easter Seals.

Runge says that CHRO TV has indicated it wants to continue to do the broadcast, that it believes in the work of the Kiwanis Club and wants to support our valuable work in the community. However, CHRO TV has also said that if the Copyright legislation is passed as is, the future of the telethon will have to be seriously re-examined.

The Kiwanis Club says "local Members of Parliament have to tell the government that broadcasters should be giving time shift' andtransfer of format' exceptions in the proposed Copyright Bill, which would eliminate the problem, and permit Kiwanis and CHRO TV to continue working for the benefit of people in Pembroke and surrounding area.

"Sometimes it is not clear that new legislation can have detrimental effects in a community" said Runge. "But this time we have been able to see the problem coming, and hopefully our MPs will understand that it is up to them to see that the people of our town don't lose out by a careless decision made in Ottawa".

It is signed by Dennis Runge, chairman of the Kiwanis Club of Pembroke, Ontario.

This is a very typical example of the way in which people with good intentions try to protect everybody from everything imaginable and end up creating severe problems for other people who do not deserve to have problems. I am sure they have received letters similar to this. They must have received them by the hundreds. I would hope that they would start to give a bit of consideration to what they are doing and make serious amendments to this bill, not just to gratify the Quebec entertainers who have been getting everything they want, but to think about the service clubs and the small community stations all over Canada that are going to suffer under this legislation.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Copyright ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.