Jim Abbott

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the question.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is correct when he says that this issue deals with matters of significance. It deals with the confidence that Canadians have in this parliamentary process.

He talks about fulfilling the pledge for an ethics counsellor when he knows full well that in the Liberal red book it called for an ethics commissioner not an ethics counsellor. He talks about transparency and accountability. He talks about extreme language. What about the extreme language of the former immigration minister during the last election? What about calling us anti-Semitic? What about all the racist epithets that she put out?

What about when the current immigration minister said that we were the Le Pen franchise in Canada? That was rather extreme, was it not?

What about the fearmongering? When the heritage minister used the name Mrs. Milosevic when she called across the floor to the member for Calgary North, was that not an obvious inference? What about the extreme language that the Liberals are always putting out?

I happen to have a fairly high regard for that member of parliament so I want to put a very serious question to him.

As the former industry minister, he knows full well that when decisions are made by the CRTC with respect to broadcast licences, satellite images being put out and all these things, these are decisions that affect companies to the tune not of millions but of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. However we also know that the CRTC rulings can be overridden or reviewed by cabinet. He would know that because he would have been approached by--

[Norway, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance would like to welcome King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway for their first official visit to Canada.

Norwegians were the first western explorers to reach Canada. They were courageous fellow combatants during the war. As fellow northerners we share deep cultural roots with Norwegians and we face many of the same problems. We have much to learn from Norway about issues like aquaculture and offshore oil. Our relationship can only prosper from closer economic ties.

I wish in particular to thank Norwegians for their contribution to the growth and development of western Canada. Thousands of them moved west to find new opportunities in the early part of the last century. They suffered many hardships homesteading on the prairies, carving out the land for all Canadians to enjoy.

We hope the royals will be able to come again soon for a longer stay that will enable them to travel and meet people of Norwegian heritage in all parts of Canada including my assistant whose grandparents, named Moxness, came from Trondheim, Norway.

I say velkommen til Canada.

[Supply, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments about the situation in Quebec. Of course we have very much a mirror image in British Columbia.

I would like him to consider a proposition. I believe that this entire problem with respect to the U.S. getting away with bringing these unfair and uncalled for punitive penalties against the people in our respective constituencies is a direct result of the Liberals just completely ignoring this effort. There was a five year period of time when there was peace as far as this issue was concerned, because we were on a quota system. I contend that within this period of time, and in the last two years in particular, the government had a serious responsibility in regard to the million people in Canada who work in the forest industry, a responsibility to make American users of our excellent products aware of what their companies were attempting to do.

Let me repeat that a million people work in the forest industry. I put a tremendous amount of responsibility at the feet of this government for not doing what it should have been doing prior to the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement. Officials should have been in the United States making Home Depot, all its users and all the contractors aware of this situation so that we would not be faced with this. I wonder if the member agrees with me.

[Privilege, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that this issue must be brought to your attention again. It has been demonstrated that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has misled the House.

On Tuesday during question period I asked the minister about a contract, for which there was no tender, regarding the royal visit in October. I asked her why Columbia Communications group got the contract.

The minister's response was:

Contrary to media reports, the contract has not been awarded.

I have obtained a copy of the opportunity abstract. It is called an advance contract award notice and is posted for 15 days. It was posted April 15 and expires April 29. If no other submissions are received, the contract is awarded.

The department has determined that it is awarding this contract untendered in the amount of $400,000 and it has 15 days for anyone to say to the contrary.

I repeat the minister's answer:

Contrary to media reports, the contract has not been awarded.

The minister's intentionally implied incorrect information is that the department plans on awarding it but that it will not be stamped until April 29.

On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

We have a statement made by the minister in the House and a document that contradicts the statement.

On November 3, 1978, a member raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. Acting on behalf of a constituent who suspected that his mail had been tampered with, the member had written in 1973 to the then solicitor general who assured him that as a matter of policy the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of anyone.

On November 1, 1978, in testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one which had been concealed from ministers. The member claimed that the statement clearly conflicted with the information he had received from the then solicitor general. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.

In the case involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage I present to you today, Mr. Speaker, we also have a statement that clearly conflicts with the information I have received.

The records of the House, as well a document that I am prepared to give you, Mr. Speaker, is sufficient evidence to allow you to rule this matter to be a prima facie case of contempt against the House.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled in a similar case on Friday, February 1, 2002, in regard to misleading statements made by the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. You said, and I quote:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance....

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Copyright Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a few of the remarks and then conclude.

I was interested in the representation by the Bloc Quebecois member. She talked about the legal concept of property and the legitimate right of the artist to earn a living and that the artists have to pay rent.

I do not know how many more times I can say it. I and the Canadian Alliance recognize the property of creators. We want to see that those people are compensated. I do not know how much more clear I can make it.

We are opposed to when there is double compensation for no particularly good reason. She and the member from the Progressive Conservative Party talked about the fact that the broadcasters are going to make savings. Guess what, they are going to create efficiency. They are going to create efficiency by investing in capital, by investing in their operation. When they invest in that operation, they are going to be penalized because they are going to be paying a double royalty.

I ask the question, why were we even considering the exemptions in sections 30.8 and 30.9 if in fact the loophole was that the exemptions were not going to exist unless they were accessed by collectives? Of course collectives are exactly the way that artists manage to collect the money. Therefore, the exemptions do not exist at all.

We must protect those authors and creators she said. I agree with her completely.

The NDP seem to be pretty much on side, but raise the issue, as did my colleague from Elk Island, of the blank recording material. This is a very critical issue. It is coming up on April 22.

For people's information, on jimabbottmp.com under bricks and bouquets which is on the lead page of website, I have a 500 word presentation on the whole issue of recordable material and how in fact when we did the Copyright Act that this was another part of it that was inserted which does create a problem.

Coming back to the motion at hand, my proposition is very simple, that we pay only once for the use of the recorded material, not that we pay twice. It would be once when the recorded material is transferred in medium and then when it actually hits airplay.

With respect to my friend from the Liberal Party, he says that this is premature. Excuse me, it is not premature. On April 22, in less than a week, we will be having this argument in front of the copyright commission. Shortly after that, payments will be required under this flawed legislation. It will not be reviewed until September 22. By his own words he told us that there will not be any changes at least until the following year. So how is this premature?

What is premature is the early taking of unintended fees from the people who are in the business of broadcasting music. He says it is better to settle this issue within section 92. No, I disagree. If the legislation is bad, if the double payment is being required and the double payment is unfair, then this issue should be dealt with right now.

I have lost count but I think it is at least the 10th time I have said that I am in favour of protecting people's creations with respect to copyright. The Canadian Alliance is in favour of protecting that property and seeing that those people are properly compensated when their property is being used.

Make no mistake about it. What I am after with this motion is to change the legislation so that the unintended collection of royalties will not occur. It is just that simple.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable so that we can actually bring this to a proper debate on the floor of the House.

[Copyright Act, April 16th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 431

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should draft legislation deleting sections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6) of the Copyright Act.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak to the issue because the minister of heritage in her wisdom has decided not to do anything about it. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that she is sitting on her hands with respect to the issue.

I will briefly describe what Motion No. 431 is about. In 1997 when the Copyright Act was amended and brought up to standard by Bill C-32 two clauses were inserted, namely clauses 30.8(8) and 30.9(6). The issue is about copyright and the fact that artists should be able to gain from commercial playing of their performances.

I want it to be crystal clear: I and the Canadian Alliance Party are in favour of the principle of copyright and compensation for people whose performances are played by commercial radio stations in any form, particularly where gain is made by the performance.

During the hearings we looked at two issues. First, we looked at prerecorded recordings which are covered by section 30.9 of the act. Second, we looked at ephemeral recordings which are covered by section 30.8.

Ephemeral recordings are things that just happen. For example, let us suppose a Santa Claus parade went by a television camera and the camera captured the image but also captured a band playing White Christmas or another popular song in both video and audio. It would then presumably be replayed on a cable network at a later point.

Prerecorded recordings are obvious. They occur where people perform for the purpose of putting their music on some kind of medium which can be physically carried, sent through the mail, walked down the street or put into a tape player, CD player or whatever the case may be.

We looked at the fact that there are times when music which is typically in digital format is transferred from a CD to a direct drive, MP3 or other device. When music is transferred digitally it is called a transfer of medium.

I will restate for the third time that I and the Canadian Alliance are in favour of fair compensation for artists whose music is played on radio stations when the playing of the music yields revenue to the radio station. The artists should get to share in the revenue. I believe there is agreement on the part of all parties with respect to this.

Sections 30.8 and 30.9 of the Copyright Act focus on when the digital image of music is transferred from one medium to another but not heard or played. That is what the exclusion is about.

I will read from the act as it exists:

30.9 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a broadcasting undertaking to reproduce in accordance with this section a sound recording, or a performer's performance or work that is embodied in a sound recording, solely for the purpose of transferring it to a format appropriate for broadcasting, if the undertaking

(a) owns the copy of the sound recording, performer's performance or work and that copy is authorized by the owner of the copyright;

(b) is authorized to communicate the sound recording, performer's performance or work to the public by telecommunication;

(c) makes the reproduction itself, for its own broadcasts--

I will not read all the terms and conditions but, as technology advances and as we transfer this music, which is still in an unheard electronic digital format when it is being transferred from a CD to an MP3 player for other reasons, they are clearly there to get around the problems.

However, the collectives who were involved in the copyright hearings asked that the following clause giving this exemption be inserted:

This section does not if a licence is available from a collective society to reproduce the sound recording, performer's performance or work.

In other words, if I were Bryan Adams and I had a recording that was to be transferred and I was not a member of a collective, I, as the artist, would not be able to go after this unintended copyright fee because it is an unintended copyright fee. No value is received for this transfer of medium.

What has happened is that most of the action on this has been because the artists are generally members of a collective. What was intended to be an exclusion really is not an exclusion after all because the collectives are now pursuing it. This is really unfortunate.

I go back to the oral remarks of David Basskin of the CMPA to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on November 7, 1996. On page 8 he stated:

Music publishers recognize that such copying [Radio transfers of format] is integral to the operation of radio stations, and also realize that any publisher foolish enough to demand payment for such copying would likely find himself frozen out of the station's playlist in short order.

Here is a commitment by somebody who was in a position of authority saying that he would not do this.

On November 7, 1996, he further stated:

I cannot speak for everybody, but I think I can speak for my board of directors who represent the largest and best-known interests. On the radio side, we don't seek to change the status quo. If this results in an agreement at a very low or gratis rate, I think we'd be entirely happy. I can't predict, but we'll certainly try our best and we'll keep the committee apprised of our work in this regard.

Not once but twice in that same committee this member said that his collective was undertaking not to do what it in fact was doing. It is presently before the copyright board trying to get a fee attached to the transfer of medium.

One collective, SODRAC, which was in place in 1997, said that it had an arrangement with CBC stating that when it had a transfer of medium with CBC it would pay for it. There was pressure from SODRAC literally days before the legislation came to a conclusion in committee to insert clause 8 into the legislation. The CMRRA, which is the Canadian Mechanical Reproduction Rights Agency, said that not only was it not collecting royalties but that it also had no intention of ever doing it. These collectives existed at the time but collected royalties for different things. After clause 8 was included and clause 9 as another clause, it developed a new sideline which allowed it to collect from another source.

This is completely unfair. We pointed out in committee that the insertion of these clauses would basically allow the collectives to supersede, wipe out or negate this very logical, rational and reasonable exception. When we pointed that out we were told by the collectives that they would not do this. This is a law that simply cannot stand because the collectives have not kept their word. In actual fact I could never understand why clause 8 and clause 6 were put in in the first place.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage should realize that this is an unfair form of revenue collection from the commercial broadcasters. It is unfair and unwarranted and is ill-found money. The collection of this accidental fee was never intended by the legislators, myself included, who were on the committee nor by the members of the House.

When talking about business, we are talking about a bottom line. Any business in Canada has a responsibility to pay its taxes, fees, rent and to pay its royalties.

This is the fourth time, but I want to make it crystal clear. I and the Canadian Alliance are not opposed to the collection of royalties. We believe that a person has a right to his or her property. If that property is being used for commercial purposes and there is commercial gain, there should be payment to the holder, the owner of that property.

By virtue of these two clauses of exception, those copyright holders are able to get their hands into an area to extract money which was never intended by the legislators.

I have brought forward this motion to prompt the heritage minister, to prompt the heritage department and to prompt my other colleagues in the House to make the necessary change so that our copyright system is fair and balanced.

[Privilege, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I extend to my hon. colleague the same compliment he extended to me. We work well together and have a high regard for each other. I reiterate that this was tested, was above board and went to the table. That is what I said yesterday.

We have a difficulty with what was tested, above board, and advised to us on the basis of the advice of the table to the chair of the committee. As I suggested yesterday, we have now realized the consequences. If the table or a member of the committee support staff such as the clerk or others reporting to, advising or helping the committee were to make public comment about my party, the Liberals, the NDP or anyone else we would find it exceptionally difficult.

What is new is that I have received a response from Professor Taras which points out that he makes comments about any number of political parties. I agree with my hon. colleague from the Liberals, the chair of the committee, that all the information was available to me and all the others. He is scrupulous in making sure we have all the information we require. I will candidly admit I missed the fact that Professor Taras or the other advisor could potentially have made negative comments about our political parties and interfered therein.

My point is therefore the same. I recognize that this is the point of privilege of the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton. I spoke in support of it to show that although the support staff may not be making public comment, by stepping outside our strict rules we have ended up with unintended consequences we could have foreseen and with which I quite frankly feel uncomfortable.

[Privilege, April 16th, 2002]

I believe I do, Mr. Speaker.

[Government Contracts, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the lack of Liberal ethics again, liberal Liberal connections. There was no tender for a $400,000 contract by the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the royal visit in October. The excuse by her apologist is that protocol requirements for such a visit require detailed understanding of protocol. Her department has a protocol department itself.

I know the tendering process can be a royal pain, but why did Columbia Communications get the contract? Is it not just the liberal Liberal use of Canadians' dollars?