Jim Abbott

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

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 Act, March 13th, 1997]

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 Act, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I probably never recognized before the differences in the thought processes between the Bloc Quebecois and other members of the House.

The Bloc Quebecois, with the greatest respect, seems to see collectives, no matter which area of society we are talking about, as being the answer. It makes me think of some of the stories we see in the English news media of the language police in Quebec. The concept of language police outside the province of Quebec is so far from the minds of people outside Quebec that we cannot even get our minds around it. Perhaps it is an indicator of a different background, a different approach to living together that the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are actually exhibiting.

This is an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois to create more teeth for collectives. It does not take into account the reality that there is presently a difference in terms of collectives among artists, composers and authors in Quebec, how they have banded together, versus artists, composers and authors in other provinces.

I recognize the member's motivation. He has clearly stated it. He sees collectives as being the cornerstone of enforcement for the bill.

There are a lot of things that businesses are finding very onerous in terms of continued government infringement through regulations and inspectors among other things. The other day a person from an asphalt and concrete plant was telling me he had 35 different inspections and fees. If we consider the area we are discussing, which is more in the area of people who are using the creations of various people, we see inspectors coming in, more and more paperwork, and more and more big brotherism.

The purpose of the copyright bill is to create a situation where the authors and composers of work are properly compensated for their intellectual and creative property. There is a place for organizations such as SOCAN. There are successful collectives that have worked their way into a good working relationship with the users of the works of the people they represent.

However, this is a further encroachment into business and the people who want to enjoy these works. It is another regulation and another level of bureaucracy, albeit not directly a government level of bureaucracy. It is something I have an unbelievable amount of difficulty with.

I happen to disagree most profoundly with the presentation made by Margaret Atwood at our committee hearings. I would like to parenthesize for a second.

Speaking of exceptions, I took some exception to the notion put forward by the Bloc heritage critic that the heritage critic for the Reform Party, namely myself, had not participated in the hearings and in the committee process. The reason I took exception was that I have a totally different recollection of the process. I recall that he and I, while we were coming at these things from different points of view very frequently, nonetheless are part of a functioning committee where it was the Bloc, it was Reform or it was the Liberal members and we were working together and indeed we did spend many countless hours together listening to input from people.

I think it is unfortunate that because I visualized the rapid fire conclusion of the committee process that was forced by the minister of heritage, and I would not dignify that process because it was a process out of control, I find it really unfortunate that the Bloc member would suggest that Reform had not been part of the process in any event.

The point I am trying to drive at with respect to this proposed amendment to Bill C-32 in the simplest possible terms is this. We must have the ability to create within copyright law a proper balance, truly a balance, a balance between people who are contributing to our society by their creative genius and the people who enjoy those works or the people who indeed are using those works such as people who are using them for commercial purposes. This is all part of what the heritage committee even now is talking about doing in terms of the definition of Canadian culture.

To my mind the simplest definition of Canadian culture is what Canadians do, just those three words. What Canadians do to my mind is the simplest, most profound definition of what Canadian culture is. Canadians have access to architecture, to writings, to music, to all sorts of things that are created by their fellow Canadians and they form part of Canadian culture and those creations, whatever they may be, are part of the intrinsic value of who we are as Canadians and what our nation truly represents.

By so doing the interesting problem that is created is that when those creations, whatever they may be, get out into the public domain, they become a legitimate part of the public domain. We have to have a balance between the people we will call the consumers of those creations versus the artists who create those works, whatever they may be.

By the insertion of a heavy handed and dare I say a police like attitude toward policing the Copyright Act, in particular now that the Copyright Act has gone to such a gross imbalance in favour of the artists, authors and composers, by creating even more teeth in a very heavy handed collective way, I fear that we are going to end up killing the goose that is creating the golden egg. Truly it is the creativity and the greatness of Canadian artists that we are here to

try to balance, what they are creating against those who want to use that work that is in the public domain.

Therefore I say in conclusion that there is no possible way that I would see myself recommending to the Reform Party that we support these clauses proposed by the member from the Bloc.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I realize I am listening to the English translation, but I believe the member used an unparliamentary word which was translated as demagogues. I wish he would withdraw that word.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I think it might be of value to take a look at part of the proposed act here that we are saying is redundant and wrong.

Clause 45 states that notwithstanding anything in this act, it is lawful for a person to important copies made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where they were made of any used books. As far as that goes, that is fine, but the government is adding "except where textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution in a course instruction". How can the government say it is not relevant or not redundant?

It defies any logic to understand how even in a place like this where there is heckling from time to time, certainly not from our side, government members can possibly heckle and say that this clause does not have anything to do with textbooks. How can they say it does not have anything to do with the words I just read when those are the words they want to put into the act?

The result of this is going to be very detrimental not only to students but to businesses serving students who presently have a situation where there is a flow of textbooks back and forth. We have an open border situation that works very well. In fact, there are thousands of people who are either part time students or who are working on campus who are involved in this particular business. There is a business going back and forth. What the Liberals want to do, for whatever reason, is stop this business. The result is it will not only cost students many tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps millions of dollars additional to the cost of their being able to get themselves educated with the textbooks prescribed by their institutions, but it is also going to put in jeopardy literally thousands of jobs of either part time students or people working on the campus serving the students.

How in the world can government members turn around and say that it does not have anything to do with textbooks when the amendment states "textbooks"?

To give the House an idea of where some of these concerns are coming from I will read from a news bulletin put out by the CAUT entitled "Ambushed by the Heritage Committee": "Angst, combat, defeat and endurance, rather than terms describing warring nations or Olympic co-operation, have been the hallmarks of the proposed Canadian copyright legislation known as Bill C-32". For those who are just tuning in to the copyright saga, angst refers to the cumulative facts of the CAUT, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Canadian school boards and the Canadian Teachers Federation. These people are deeply concerned not only about this part of the copyright law but other parts of it. Let us just stay on this part.

What is the net result of the entire process? It is being held together with chewing gum and baling wire. As a matter of fact the scotch tape is starting to show. This entire process has been so flawed that the members cannot even read the bill where it says "except textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature".

These people who are after all educators or are involved in higher education in Canada state, as is pointed out in this article: "The manner in which the amendments were pushed through the committee in just a few hours, many without prior consent from representatives of the jointly responsible Industry Canada, left onlookers aghast".

We are involved in a process that the government does not seem to understand. I will admit to a degree of partisanship when I speak about the heritage minister and the way that she has handled this, but really this bill has nothing to do with partisanship. This bill has everything to do with attempting to create a balance between the creators and the users of material, whatever that material is, whatever those creations are.

To give the House an idea of what I am talking about, there was some discussion in committee about another section of the bill and the term "commercially available". This has a real impact as well on universities and teaching institutions.

For example, under educational institutions, section 29.4, because of the committee amendments to commercially available, would impact educational institutions if they were to photocopy a poem or any document created by Margaret Atwood for an

overhead projection in a high school class. That would be an infringement of copyright.

If an educational institution was to make a photographic slide of a painting by Alex Colville, a living Canadian artist, that could be projected on to the screen for purposes of teaching an art class, that would be an infringement of copyright.

If that institution was to photocopy a chapter from a very hard to find book and the class was asked to write a short literary criticism or an explanation of that document, that would be an infringement.

If, as part of an examination students were required to translate a poem into French, this invokes both reproduction and translation under section 29.4(2).

Libraries and archives or museums are being impacted if they make a cassette production for use by patrons of an original recording of a Canadian artist, now deceased, reading his own poetry in the early sixties, the condition of the original is such that it could not be handed directly to the patrons. This entire bill is patchwork and many of those patches, many of the holes do not even line up any more.

I return to my original thesis. I do not know the reasons why this clause was inserted into the bill. It is going to create a very serious situation for students. We will be increasing the costs to people getting an education as a result of the oversight or the accidental inclusion of this clause. There does not seem to be any particularly good reason for the inclusion of it.

The problem is that the entire bill from stem to gunnel is a patchwork that is falling apart and the scotch tape is not going to do the job.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-32, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 26 on page 62 with the following:

"where they were made, of any used books."

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, when this bill came forward, a tremendous number of people were concerned about it, including the photographers. One of their concerns was the lack of protection for their works. As I look at Motion No. 4 put forward by the Bloc member for Richmond-Wolfe, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois is infringing on ordinary contractual agreements that can be made between people.

The Bloc is really asking in this bill that there be a virtual interference with the ability of people to come to their own conclusions, arrive at their own agreements and work forward from that point. The member has brought forward a very restrictive motion. For example, Motion No. 4: "A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public", and I do not understand the Bloc's thought process here, "the work

exhibited or shown in public, or the work broadcast or included in a cable program service".

The reason I am saying I do not understand the Bloc's thought process is that realistically there should be an agreement between two consenting parties. When I look at the inclusion of the clause by the government I find myself far more in agreement with the position of the government. The reason is simply that it speaks about the exchange of value for consideration. The consideration was paid pursuant to the order and in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the person for whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of copyright.

It sets up a pecking order that would work well to resolve situations between contracting parties as opposed to the Bloc amendment which sets up restrictions that people would actually have to negotiate away.

This is a concern. Photographers made presentations to us in committee, to me personally and to, I am sure, many other members. They pointed out that in a lot of instances when they lose control of the negative their work has the potential of being compromised.

I think of a situation in my constituency where a chap has had a photograph reproduced many times in many magazines. As a matter of fact it was actually made significantly larger and reproduced in poster format. It was the picture of a helicopter soaring above the clouds in the mountains taken from the mountainside. It is very dramatic. Imagine his chagrin that he has no way to recapture it.

We have been critical and continue to be very critical of the way in which the government has handled Bill C-32. Many portions of the act have created imbalances in both directions. It is being held together with chewing gum and baling wire. Nonetheless this is a clause included by the government that I would see the Reform Party being able to support fully.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak specifically to the issue of copyright performances, sound recordings and communication signals that are part of this clustering of motions we have.

Before I do that, however, I would say to the parliamentary secretary that there is within the parliamentary system the ability for members of Parliament to be able to converse with each other and to reveal what is coming so there is some prior notice. I respect that.

However, on the other side of the coin I would point to an obscure example but a very accurate one, that the Liberals would say they said they are in favour of an elected Senate and this is what they did with the Constitution and the Charlottetown accord. That measure fell far short of what we are asking for. To have said it is accurate, that the measure was there, but in fact it in no way reflected what we consider to be important.

While I respect and accept the hon. member's comment that there have been provisions put in place in response to some of the concerns that were expressed by me on behalf of our party and on behalf of users, on the other side of the coin the fact that I have not to this point had the opportunity to see what those things are and to pass judgment on what those things are is exactly the problem we are having at this time.

I accept that he would have said these things to me in good faith, that he would have said they have answered our concern. However, by the time this bill becomes an act, by the time it is law, there will be an interpretation either by the copyright board or by the courts.

On behalf of my party and people who have expressed their concerns to me, I want the opportunity to have even a couple of hours to understand the legal implications of the words the government is now coming forward with. It is for this reason that I have been as upset as I have this morning that at the very last minute the government has been trying to put patchwork on to this seriously flawed bill.

With respect to the motions before the House now, there are any number of issues we can speak about in terms of so-called neighbouring rights. For example, the end of clause 1 speaks of the Rome convention country. We do not share airwaves with people in Europe, nor do we share them with people in Australia and other signatories to the Rome convention.

My understanding is that drawing the performers in line with the Rome convention is very commendable. However, our radio stations are sharing airwaves with the people who border the 49th parallel. Until the U.S. decides, if it does decide, to go ahead with neighbouring rights, our broadcasters, in particular in the Windsor-Sarnia area, even in the Toronto area with the Buffalo and Rochester signals, in Montreal with the signals coming in from Vermont, will be at a serious disadvantage by comparison with their U.S. competitors. Many of their U.S. competitors are going after exactly the same advertising dollar.

In her presentation to committee the minister challenged me on behalf of my party. She said "you say your party believes in property rights, that you would see the enshrinement of property rights". A performance right is somewhat parallel to a property right. She was right.

This issue is a case of weighing out the advantage and the disadvantage. It is a case of weighing out who will be benefited or who will be hurt. We are taking a look at the value the performers actually receive from airplay. I grant there is a good argument but not an exceptionally strong argument. If I were to balance it out I would say it is probably 60 per cent in favour of the notion that performers who actually perform their works which are being broadcast should receive some direct recompense from the revenue driven by radio. In my humble judgment there is a 60:40 argument in favour of the artist.

Then I look at the entire picture of the value they receive of the airplay, which is the 40 per cent. People will go to the record store to buy the CDs or cassettes. There is a live performance factor that has been put into this by members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and there is a value that the performers receive. I see that we have close to a balance.

Then I look at the economic damage that will be done to the radio stations. I look at the fact that they are already paying over3 per cent in copyright. We do not know what percentage they will be open to. Will it be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent? I do not know what the percentage is going to be for these neighbouring rights.

I looked at the people who are employed in the broadcast industry and the fact that there are many technologies including satellite where we can beam things up and down and have them broadcast at the local level. There are many labour saving devices such as being able to electronically file music that would normally be handled physically from CDs.

I looked at all the things that are happening electronically and if I were going to be investing in a broadcast facility I would be looking at the total picture. Where am I going to get this extra 1 per cent or 2 per cent that is going to be charged to me on my airplay for the performers? I would probably be driven to the conclusion in my decision making process, managing intelligently and well, that I would be better off to get some kind of electronic labour saving device that would probably remove some of the technical staff, some of the on air people.

In other words, this has the ability on one side of the coin to give a financial reward to performers but at what cost to the bottom line of the radio stations and particularly at what cost to the people who are working in those radio stations? I see this as being a well intentioned move, warm and fuzzy, but I see it as ultimately being very dangerous and very possibly a job killer.

I would invite all members to take a serious look at this and to follow the motions that have been put forward by the Reform Party and vote to repeal the neighbouring rights section of Bill C-32.

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 5 with the following: a ) section 3, in the case of a work, or''

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 7.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-32, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 38 on page 16, 1 to 48 on page 17, 1 to 43 on page 18, 1 to 40 on.page 19, 1 to 44 on page 20, 1 to 14 on page 21, 6 to 45 on page 22, 1 to 44 on page 23, 1 to 40 on page 24, 1 to 44 on page 25 and 1 to 16 on page 26.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 76 with the following:

"do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21,"

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 76 with the following:

"mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the"

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-32, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 77 with the following:

"person to do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the case may be, the collective"

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

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.