Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Bloc MP for Richmond—Wolfe (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point.

The hon. member's approach does not seem to correspond with the intent of the bill. We should remember that the use of blank tapes is a matter of piracy. In committee we heard many groups, including the Consumers Association of Canada, confirm that in fact everyone was copying cassettes. You take a cassette, and you can make endless copies.

I wonder whether anyone in this House could say that neither they nor their family members had ever used a cassette to tape music from a record. I have some figures for the hon. member.

First of all, this type of private copying compensation system has been adopted in 25 countries. It is not a tax but a levy. A certain amount is levied, and it is called a levy because it is more or less a salary for performers who are entitled to receive it because they are the ones who create and produce.

Last year alone, 44 million blank tapes were sold. According to the report of the task force on the future of the Canadian music industry in 1996, at least 39 million of these cassettes are used for copying purposes, resulting in a total loss of about $325 million to the recording industry and performers.

Think about it. I think it is a very good idea to collect a levy from the source, from the manufacturers, and redistribute it as a salary to performers who are losing money because people are copying their cassettes.

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-32, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 86 with the following:

"within thirty days after the publication of the"

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 70 with the following:

"within thirty days after the publication of the"

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-32, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 78 with the following:

"within thirty days after the publication of the"

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 41 with the following:

"(8) This section does not apply where a collective society is authorized to grant a licence to the programming undertaking to make the fixation or reproduction of the performer's performance, work or sound recording."

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended in the French version, by replacing line 19 on page 40 with the following:

"public au même moment que la fixation ou la reproduction, pourvu que:"

Copyright Act March 13th, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 30 the following:

"29.21 Section 29.5, subsections 29.6(1), 29.7(1) and 29.7(3), section 30, subsections 30.2(1), (2) and (5) and section 30.5 do not apply in relation to works, performers' performances, sound recordings or communication signals that form part of the repertoire of a collective society."

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-32, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 81 the following:

"77.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 77, where the act for which a licence is being sought is administered by a collective society referred to in section 70.1, a ) the application shall be made to the collective society; b ) the collective society shall determine whether the conditions set out in subsection 77(1) have been met; c ) the collective society shall have the power to issue a licence; and d ) the terms of the licence issued by the collective society shall not be more onerous than those set out in the society's licensing scheme.

(2) Where the applicant and the collective society are unable to agree on the royalties to be paid for the right to do the act or on their related terms and conditions, either of them may apply to the Board to fix the royalties and their related terms and conditions pursuant to subsection 70.2(1).

(3) Subsections 77(2), (3) and (4) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to applications made pursuant to subsection (1)."

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-32, in Clause 53.1, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 93 with the following:

"53.1 Notwithstanding subsection 67.1(2), section 70.13 and subsections 71(3) and 83(4) of the Copyright Act, as enacted by sections 45, 46 and 50 of this Act, the"

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk at this stage about the amendments in Group No. 5 for a very specific reason, which is that the collective societies are the issue, the focus of recognition in this bill.

It was in 1988 that we recognized and expanded the collective societies. SOCAN is one that is particularly well known.

When the bill was tabled, we immediately drew the government's attention to the exceptions in the bill, because it concerns the recognition of moral and economic copyright. The new bill-phase II of the modernization effort-provided for a great many additional exceptions, including educational institutions, museums, libraries and archives, thereby seriously undermining the rights of authors and creators.

We drew the government's attention to and criticized this aspect of the bill, which was very detrimental to creators in releasing some major sectors from the obligation to negotiate with authors and to recognize copyright, because everyone could now retrench and hide behind the law. What we said is that it promotes irresponsibility. They took away people's responsibility by inviting them to negotiate with authors or with the collective societies representing copyright holders.

This morning, I said these exceptions were like a huge black cloud hanging over the bill. At this point I would like to mention what two groups, one group and one person in particular, who appeared before the committee had to say about what the exceptions meant for them. Quebec artists represented by their collective society came to tell us that it was truly a unacceptable step backward. Margaret Atwood, very well known in English Canada, described the exceptions as outright theft of copyright.

Having heard the observations of collective societies and of artists, we put great effort into trying to present, first of all for us, for the Bloc Quebecois, an amendment to the effect that the exceptions not apply where there is a collective society.

The government has really made progress in trying to reduce the number of exceptions, to keep them to a minimum, but their efforts notwithstanding, we are returning to the charge in the House today and calling on the government to listen to reason and to agree to full recognition of collective societies, to agree that where such societies have been set up, exceptions should not apply.

With respect to exceptions, we think it important to point out, first, that they are the most negative aspect of the bill, although we have managed to reduce their impact, and second that allowing exceptions is expropriation of copyright. And this needs to be said.

I call on the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments and recognize the usefulness of collective societies, which for a number of years now have truly done a good job. The Copyright Board recognizes that collective societies are doing a good job, that this approach, which is still in its early days, should be extended and, above all, should recognize the right of authors, creators and artists to negotiate their own works. Their own moral and economic rights must be recognized throughout the bill. I urge the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments.

Business Of The House March 13th, 1997

I do not have a question.

Dubbing Industry March 13th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, considering that the Minister of Canadian Heritage says she is working together with the Quebec minister, I may remind her that broadcasting is under federal jurisdiction, that Telefilm Canada is under federal jurisdiction, and that in both cases, the minister has the authority to inform the Canadian film production and television production industry that it is important to have their dubbing done in Quebec.

Will the minister promise to use every means at her disposal to deal with this matter?

Dubbing Industry March 13th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the dubbing industry in Quebec is in trouble.

This industry, which is a source of income for 450 workers, generates about $20 million in the Canadian cultural sector. The Union des artistes and l'Association québécoise des industries techniques du cinéma et de la télévision sounded of the alarm this week, sending a message to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What kind of measures is the minister now considering to support the dubbing industry in Quebec?