Debates of March 20th, 1997

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth on Tuesday, March 11, 1997 concerning the scheduling of the consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence proceedings), by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I thank the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, and the hon. member for North Vancouver for their comments in this matter.

In his submission, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth argued that his rights as a member of Parliament had been breached by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He claimed that the committee had misinterpreted and misused Standing Order 108(2) by scheduling that morning a meeting to consider the subject matter of Bill C-46 when he believed that second reading debate on the bill was to resume in the House that same afternoon.

He maintained that in order to participate in a more relevant manner in the committee's meeting, it was important for him to be present in the House that afternoon for the second reading debate on the bill. Thus he claimed that his rights and privileges to appear and participate in the committee's deliberations had been denied.

As members are well aware, important procedural reforms have evolved from the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, commonly referred to as the McGrath Report, which was tabled in June 1985. One of the main features of the report was its proposal

to empower committees to initiate their own studies without any specific order of reference from the House.

This proposal resulted in what we now know as Standing Order 108(2), which confers upon standing committees a wide-ranging authority to examine and report on all relevant matters pertaining to the mandate, management, organization or operation of specified departments. It is pursuant to this Standing Order that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs chose to undertake a study of the subject-matter of Bill C-46.

As indicated by the justice committee chair, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, this course of action has been followed by other committees. For example, the Standing Committee on Finance decided in January 1990 to undertake consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts. More recently the justice committee initiated an examination of the subject matter of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility). It is interesting to note that in both these cases the committees were holding meetings on the subject matter of these bills while the House was either proceeding with or resuming second reading debate of the same bills.

Committees are free to set their own priorities, establish work plans and schedule their business. As the Speaker, it is not my role to get involved in such committee matters and I would refrain from doing so, as have my predecessors. However, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona stated that "the spirit of the McGrath reform was that things would not be happening simultaneously", perhaps committees could keep this in mind when planning their work.

I would also like to remind all members that the daily publication, Projected Order of Business, provides them with the listing of all business expected, and I repeat expected, to be taken up on a particular day as well as some days to come. However, as you know, the government is not bound by this publication and retains the right, under Standing Order 40(2), to call any item of business listed under government orders on that day's Order Paper.

May I draw your attention to the fact that the business printed on the Projected Order of Business is subject to change without notice. This is clearly emphasized in the note appearing under the title of the document. As committees plan their work, they may or may not be aware of changes to the Projected Order of Business, or the progress made on a bill for that matter.

In the case presently before us, the resumption of second reading debate on Bill C-46 was listed on the

Projected Order of Business

published for Tuesday, March 11, 1997. This may have caused some members to assume that this item would be taken up that day. In fact, this particular item was not called on that day. It would therefore appear to have been premature on the part of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth to raise the question at that time as Bill C-46 was not considered by the House that day.

I have given careful consideration to the matter presented by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and I have taken into account the extent to which this matter infringed on his ability to perform his parliamentary duties.

It has always been difficult, and increasingly so nowadays, for members to manage their time because of the constraints imposed on them by the House, committee meetings, as well as caucus and constituency business, and members often must make choices as to what business they should give priority.

Although I can certainly sympathize with the hon. member's predicament, he was not, in my estimation, prevented from carrying out his parliamentary responsibilities. Therefore the Chair does not find that a prima facie case of privilege has been made.

I thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Copyright Act

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, for Minister for International Trade]

moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, our culture defines who we are. It is what makes Canada unique in the world. Bill C-32 is not only about culture, it is about creating jobs and growth for Canadians. It is about strengthening Canada's cultural industries and strengthening the very things that allow us to tell our very unique story.

Nine hundred thousand Canadian jobs depend on the cultural sector and nearly 5 per cent of our gross domestic product comes from culture. Over the last five years the cultural sector has grown faster than the economy as a whole. But this success did not happen by magic. It took incredible talent, risk takers, artists and millions

and millions of Canadians who wanted to hear and see and read our story.

What is copyright? Copyright is protecting people's creative work. It means that creators have the right to be paid when their work is used for commercial purposes.

According to Statistics Canada the average Canadian artist is among the lowest paid in the economy, earning only about $13,000 per year.

Just a few weeks ago, I was pleasantly surprised to meet world- renowned author Antonine Maillet. She told me that she could not live on her royalties alone, that she had to give lectures to make ends meet.

This bill is about fairness and making sure that Canada's creators are paid for the work they create, for their intellectual property. This bill has struck a balance which safeguards the interests of the users so that all Canadians can continue to be exposed to Canada's story.

We have listened carefully, and this is a copyright act that respects those values. That is how Canadian culture will flourish and that is how jobs will continue to be created in the cultural industries. We need an act that deals with the realities of today, not 1924 when the act was first adopted.

For eight years now, successive governments and ministers have been working on this copyright bill. With Bill C-32, we tried to strike a balance between the creators' rights and the need to make their works accessible to everyone. Bill C-32 creates a healthy and fair environment for Canadian book distributors.

As for all framework legislation, the Copyright Act as amended by Bill C-32 sets out the legitimate right of creators to be compensated for the commercial use of their works, while ensuring that the international community has reasonable access to these works.

Given the number of creators and users affected, it is not surprising that Bill C-32 took so long. It is the result of a long and painstaking study and consultation process.

First of all I want to thank all the members of the committee who did the real work in bringing back into the House Bill C-32 for third reading.

In particular, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, the committee chairman, for his leadership on a very sensitive and complex matter.

We are extremely grateful that we have a colleague in this House who is the model of calm, reasoned and impassioned guidance.

I would especially not want to forget to thank also the one who took care of the painstaking balancing act, that is, my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. He guided us through every step with his usual devotion and impartiality.

I want to thank also the members of the Liberal caucus who spent hours and hours ensuring that we achieved the right balance. I would be remiss if I did not in particular single out-

-the work done by the critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, who put his own political interests aside to co-operate with all of us on a very important issue for all the artists of our country.

There are times in politics when one has to put his or her own beliefs aside to work on drafting good legislation. I think that this is what we succeeded to do together.

Aided by our consultations, the government put forward a number of amendments at third reading. These amendments were aimed at improving the bill.

I want to point out that the only party in the House that is opposed to copyright is the third party, the Reform Party. I think it is important to point out how the Reform Party has in its own charter cited the importance for respect of property rights. Let me quote from the Reform Party's policy on constitutional reform: "The Reform Party supports amending the charter of rights to recognize that in Canada there has existed the right of every person to the ownership, use and enjoyment of property, both real and personal, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law".

Unfortunately despite the stated belief in property rights this party did not recognize these rights when it came to Canada's creators and artists. The Reform Party unfortunately refuses to recognize that when an artist creates a song, quand Céline Dion chante or when Shania Twain sings the voice of Shania Twain is what makes that song unique. Up until the passage of this bill Shania Twain was never recognized as the creator of the record or the CD that bore her name. Historically, because of copyright reform almost a decade ago, we paid the person who writes the Shania Twain song but we never paid the singer. Bill C-32 will change that.

The Reform Party does not recognize the legitimate rights of what yesterday the Speaker so eloquently called the soul of our nation. Copyright reform also plays a real and important part in maintaining our place in the world and in maintaining our identity. By bringing in this bill the government is recognizing that culture is the lifeblood of what we are as a nation and that culture is part of our collective identity.

For nearly ten years artists have awaited the reform of phase II of copyright. Last December the world community, through the World Intellectual Property Organization, concluded two new important world treaties, the copyright treaty and the performances and phonographs treaty. Unfortunately Canada could not sign those treaties. Our own copyright legislation was so out of date that we could not sign a convention which was established in 1961. Bill C-32 will fix that. Canada will finally be in a position to join the world community as a full respector of copyright.

We can also move forward to address the pressing issues related to the digital agenda and the pressing issues related to the performances and phonographs treaty of world intellectual property.

We worked very hard to give Canadian artists, who work in conditions that are among the poorest of all trades, the opportunity to get financial reward for what they currently do on a royalty-free basis.

Bill C-32 is good both for creators and for people who use the products of the Canadian cultural industry, that is, Canada as a whole. I am therefore asking the members of the House to demonstrate resolve and respect.

I am asking all members of the House to underscore their respect for copyright by supporting the third reading of this bill and by ensuring that it has a speedy move to the Senate where we fully expect the kind of co-operation which was very evident in the debate in the House of Commons.

I also want to say a special thank you to the Liberal whip's office and in particular the whip and the deputy whip for the work they have done in bringing this bill together. I thank the House leader, the whip, the deputy whip and the deputy House leader. Hopefully the bill will be sent to the Senate tonight for first reading. It is a bill which has been a long time coming. It will mean a better life for thousands of Canadian artists.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with much pride that, as the official opposition critic for heritage and cultural industries, I stand to take part in this debate.

This is an occasion of great pride and a great step forward for the artists, the creators, those who nurture our imagination and our culture; it is a great step forward because, after third reading, this bill will be sent to the other place and will ultimately receive royal assent.

I listened with great pleasure the comments made by the Canadian heritage minister, because she pointed out that the tremendous work that has been done all along in the committee, which received so many reports and studies-over 170 briefs-and heard about 67 witnesses, work that was done with great care and determination to improve a bill that will serve the artists, the cultural industries and the users.

Very briefly, I think the colleagues in the heritage committee, both the government and the official opposition colleagues, quickly understood that we had the will and determination to work together to advance the best things possible for this bill.

In that regard, I must say that, as parliamentarians, we are of course members of Parliament elected to legislate; we are here to make laws. In the process of studying the copyright legislation, we all felt-and I think I speak for my colleagues-that we were playing our role as parliamentarians, that is making sure the bill put forward gets improved every step along the way in keeping with its ultimate goal, which in this case was to serve, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage said, the interests of the artists, of the creators and of the cultural industries.

In that sense, I think we reached our objective. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support the bill on third reading because these objectives have been reached.

I would like to remind the House simply but clearly that this bill comes after an act that was passed in 1924 and was first amended in 1988. Now, in 1997, we have a third set of amendments, the so-called phase II.

Most artists and creators in visual or performing arts get an income from artistic activity that averages between $7,000 and $13,000 a year, depending on the type of activity. It is easy to understand that, for these people, it has been quite a long wait, from 1924 to 1988, before the society they live in and the Parliament of all elected representatives got around to listen to them.

This is a crucial stage, because in 1988, artists and creators were granted greater moral and economic rights. In 1988, an extremely pivotal development took place: collective societies were recognized. Authors and creators can now be represented by an organization that tries to better manage the royalties and levies authors, creators, and artists are entitled to, if they are to earn a living from their artistic activity.

Bill C-32 introduces majors elements, including the neighbouring rights concept. The heritage minister just mentioned it a

moment ago. On behalf of our performers and the recording industry, we must at last join the 50 countries or so that have recognized neighbouring rights and signed the Rome Convention. This last phase of Bill C-32 will allow our performers to have their rights recognized in more than 50 countries. This is a major step forward.

In this bill, there is another recognition, another important gain in the area of private copying. Everyone recognized during the hearings, and we spoke together about this, that a lot of illegal copying, a lot of bootlegging of songs and music is done without the creators and singers necessarily getting their fair share.

With the private copying system, royalties will be paid directly to the manufacturer who, in turn, will redistribute them among creators, authors, composers and singers who, up until now, were deprived of their share because of this universally recognized practice that is the copying of cassettes.

This bill also has an interesting feature that gives us hope: it will be reviewed in five years.

Everybody knows that this bill is not perfect. We worked on it, we improved it, but everybody admits that, in certain respects, it is already out of date. One reason for this is that it does not refer to modern technologies, to all those communication means which are being developed and on which artists still have no control in defending their rights.

I ask the government to see to it that phase III can get under way as soon as possible and to request that the heritage committee complete its work before the bill is reviewed in five years, so we are well informed when the time comes.

I wish to recall that the question of copyright has been on the official opposition's agenda since we arrived in this House. My colleague, the heritage minister, will recall that, at the beginning of this 35th Parliament, my colleague for Rimouski-Témiscouata, who spoke before me, asked her a question about this. She asked the minister to table a copyright bill as soon as possible. I must say that, in this regard, the official opposition's mandate has been fulfilled.

I also remind the House that, in the interests of the artists, the official opposition asked the government to give consideration as quickly as possible to the new technologies and the new circumstances on the global market.

In fact, between 1988 and 1990, some changes were made to the act as a result of NAFTA and other international agreements. Not long ago, the heritage committee was asked to review our cultural policy in relation to those international agreements.

The official opposition did its job and managed to convince the government to act in the best interests of artists, who had been waiting for these changes for a long time. They are still waiting for some changes reflecting the new international market conditions and the new technologies.

Today is an important day. I ask all my colleagues to vote for the bill at third reading.

In concluding, I would like to thank first, my colleagues on the heritage committee for their co-operation and their support. I also thank the staff and the advisers who followed the committee during its proceedings to help its members understand all the issues and do a good job in presenting to this House an improved bill meeting the ultimate objectives of the authors.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation for all the groups who submitted briefs or came before us to express their opinion and explain the issues as clearly as possible to help us do a good job.

I want to express my sincere thanks to all those people and I hope that the bill will be given royal assent before the elections are called.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-32. However I must say right from the beginning I am extremely disappointed with the deal that has been made between the Bloc Quebecois and the government to end debate on this issue. Many Canadians still are very concerned about so many aspects of Bill C-32 which simply do not fill the needs of interested parties, not the least of whom are Canadian broadcasters.

I will declare my sympathies off the top as I always do. As I always point out to my colleagues across the way, I come from a background in broadcasting and I think it is important that be known.

We are again seeing collusion between the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals to end debate on an issue that affects millions and millions of Canadians. People still had all kinds of questions they wanted addressed. Unfortunately the government ignored them just as it ignored the concerns of people on the HST legislation on which the government also moved closure. It is becoming quite a common feature of the government, more so than the previous Mulroney government. That is the first point I wanted to deal with.

Second, I will deal with the legislation specifically. Broadcasters have asked over and over and over again for a number of things. They have asked that the government move amendments to the legislation that would permit them to time shift, which simply means they would have the ability to record a program at one time

and then play it back at a different time without having to seek the permission of people who were playing music on that particular broadcast, without having to go through all the hoops, without having to go through all the paperwork. It is a common sense request, but for reasons that escape me or anybody with a modicum of common sense the government has denied it.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is in the bill.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

The minister is saying that it is in the bill, but it is not in the bill to the point where it is clear to the people involved that they will not suffer consequences if they do not jump through all those hoops. The minister knows that legal action has been taken in the past with respect to these sorts of issues. It leaves broadcasters wide open.

The government must remember-and this is where the government falls down-that it does not place adequate importance on ensuring that broadcasters and the electronic media, the vehicles for the promotion of Canadian heritage, are allowed to do the job they have done so well in the past of promoting the wonderful culture of this country.

Time shifting is one issue. I have spoken to many people at community cable channels. I have spoken to different groups that provide all kinds of great Canadian programming. They will feel a chill run through their organizations because the government has failed to adequately define how this would work. It has failed to make it clear that broadcasters could go ahead and do things like time shift without feeling some kind of repercussion.

Broadcasters have also raised the issue of transfer of format over and over again but it has fallen on deaf ears.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is in the bill.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

It is in the bill.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Although they are talking about it being in the bill, it is not defined well enough.

For reasons that escape me the broadcasters have asked for some clarification, for some simplification so that everybody will be satisfied. Then there would be no problem.

Again the government has failed to listen. Therefore broadcasters will be put in a position where they may be paying twice simply because they are transferring a song from a CD on to an electronic format like a computer hard disk. They will have to pay twice simply because the government has not used common sense and has not listened closely enough to broadcasters who are therefore put in this awkward position. There is no good reason for it. We have had hearings over and over again.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is in the bill.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

I say to the minister that we have had all kinds of hearings. The minister knows full well that broadcasters have insisted that what is in the bill is not adequate. Nor is it clear enough. Unfortunately broadcasters will have to jump through major hoops simply because the government has not been listening closely to what they are saying.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary across the way are concerned about the input of broadcasters. After all, they are the vehicle for the promotion of so much Canadian culture. Who could deny that they have done anything but a wonderful job? It escapes me why the government would not be listening a little closer.

I want to make a couple of comments on behalf of my former colleagues in the broadcast industry. Please forgive me for doing this, Mr. Speaker, but I simply must. Yesterday we had some wonderful artists here from around the country, people who represented Canadian culture in various sectors: painters, poets and writers involved in film. It is important to remember that Canadian radio and television broadcasters should be standing beside those people, the vehicles for the promotion of culture.

Over the last several years broadcasters have taken many hits at the hands of the former Conservative government and even at the hands of this government. Taxes continue to climb. All kinds of radio and television stations are in great financial difficulty. They have been struggling to make a go of it. When those various outlets disappear they are not there to promote Canadian culture.

The government is proposing legislation that will make it extremely difficult for marginal stations to make a go of it. It will make it extremely difficult for those in very tight competitive situations to make a go of it. Therefore it is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The government is making it extremely difficult for broadcasters who have done a wonderful job of promoting culture over the years to continue doing that.

Broadcasters have tried to work very closely with the minister and her department. They have made extraordinary efforts to come to the committee to explain their position. They have been at the beck and call of the department. They are more than willing to come and have a dialogue with the minister and her departmental officials at any time. Even Liberal members across the way have worked closely with broadcasters to try to get their point of view.

Unfortunately on these common sense issues the government has not listened. Many bureaucrats in the Department of Heritage who think they know better than broadcasters what their business is. On this particular issue they simply do not. Broadcasters have made it clear over and over again that this will impede their ability to do their job which ultimately, after making a profit and all those sorts of things, is to promote Canadian culture in many different ways.

If I have not said it forcefully enough, I am extremely disappointed. Canadian broadcasters will be extremely disappointed. The people who listen to radio stations and who watch television stations will also be disappointed that the legislation is being forced through.

The government has joined forces with the Bloc Quebecois after a lot of debate has gone on in this place. We have reached a point where we could make some changes and the government has gone ahead and said it will ignore those common sense solutions. It will bull ahead and put forward solutions which simply are not adequate.

I do not know if there is much more I could say on the issue other than that I know I speak for broadcasters across the country when I say they will be extremely disappointed.

[An hon. member]

What about the artists?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

I am sure they will be disappointed when broadcasters simply cannot provide the type of service to them because of the legislation that I know they would love to do.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Speaker]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House Ottawa

March 20, 1997

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th day of March, 1997 at 6.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General