CONTENTS
Thursday, March 13, 1997
Bill C-89. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8988
Bill C-90. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8988
Bill C-385. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8988
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 8988
Division on motion deferred 8989
Bill C-32. Report stage 8990
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8990
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 8990
(Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18 withdrawn) 8990
Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 39, 42, 43, and 46 8990
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8991
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 18; Nays, 84 8995
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 8996
Division on Motion No. 48 deferred 8996
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 50, 51 and 52 8997
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8999
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9000
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 9004
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9004
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 9008
Motions Nos. 6 and 60 9008
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9008
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9012
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9014
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9015
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 9016
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9018
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9019
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9019
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 9019
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 9019
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9020
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9020
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9020
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9020
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 9021
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 9021
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 9022
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9022
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9023
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9023
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 9024
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 6, 44 and 60 9025
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9025
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 9028
Division on Motion No. 44 deferred 9029
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9029
Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57 9029
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 9034
Division on Motion No. 54 deferred 9034
Division on Motion No. 57 deferred 9034
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 9034
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 9034
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage andGroup No. 6 motions 9037
(Motion No. 12 agreed to.) 9038
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 9038
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9039
Motions Nos. 20 and 24 9039
Motions Nos. 26 and 27 9040
Motions Nos. 29, 30 and 31 9040
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9040
Motions Nos. 33 and 34 9040
Motions Nos. 36 and 37 9040
Motions Nos. 58 and 59 9040
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 and
59 9044
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 and
59 9045
Bill C-214. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 9045
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 9051
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage andof Motions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 and
59 9051
Division on Motion No. 17 deferred 9052
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 9052
Division on Motion No. 26 deferred 9052
Division on Motion No. 27 deferred 9053
Division on Motions Nos. 29 and 30 deferred 9053
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 9053
Division on Motion No. 34 deferred 9053
Division on Motions Nos. 36 and 58 deferred 9053
Division on Motions Nos. 37 and 59 deferred 9053
Motions Nos. 40 and 41 9054
Division on Motion No. 40 deferred 9054
Division on Motion No. 41 deferred 9054
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9054
Division on Motion No. 45 deferred 9054
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9054
Motions Nos. 47 and 53 9054
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9054
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9057
(Motion No. 47 negatived.) 9057
Division on Motion No. 55 deferred 9057
8987
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 13, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of
privilege raised on March 4, 1997 by the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, concerning a Health Canada advertisement
published in certain daily newspapers.
[English]
I would like to thank the members who spoke to this matter on
the following day, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for
Lethbridge, the chief government whip, the hon. members for
York-South Weston, Joliette and St. Albert.
[Translation]
In his statement, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie
said that an advertisement placed by Health Canada, which
appeared in Quebec's major newspapers on March 4, 1997
concerning the ``anti-tobacco law'', was false and affected the
privileges of the House. He said that the advertisement assumed
that the House had already enacted Bill C-71, whereas this was not
the case. By unanimous consent, he tabled a copy of the
advertisement.
I have carefully examined the advertisements in question. In
their statements, the hon. members for Laurier-Sainte-Marie and
Lethbridge drew a parallel between the case before us now and one
that was the subject of a ruling by Speaker Fraser in October 1989.
Although both cases concern advertising in relation to not-yet
enacted legislative provisions, there are certain basic differences
that make the comparison dubious. Before elaborating on these
obvious differences, I would first like to remind the House of the
circumstances surrounding the 1989 incident.
[English]
On August 26, 1989 the Department of Finance published an
advertisement concerning the goods and services tax, the GST, in
newspapers across the country. Although the GST legislation had
not yet been given first reading the advertisement read as follows:
On January 1, 1991, Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save
this notice. It explains the changes and the reasons for them.
[
Translation]
On September 25, 1989, the then Leader of the Opposition, the
right hon. John Turner, raised a question of privilege on this issue,
arguing that the advertisement as published constituted a contempt
of Parliament. On October 10, 1989, at pages 4457 to 4461 of the
Debates, Speaker Fraser stated that the purpose of the
advertisement was not intended to tarnish the dignity of the House
and that, accordingly, there was no prima facie contempt of
Parliament. He thought, however, that the advertisement was
ill-conceived.
[English]
Similarly in a recent case before the Ontario legislature Speaker
Stockwell dealt with a question of privilege concerning
government advertising. It was alleged that whereas legislation had
yet to be adopted by the assembly a pamphlet was issued by the
minister of municipal affairs and housing regarding the
government's program for reforming municipal governments in
metropolitan Toronto.
On January 22, 1997 Speaker Stockwell considered that the
contents of this brochure were worded in a very definitive way and
conveyed the impression that passage of the required legislation
was not necessary. Consequently, the Speaker determined that a
prima facie case of contempt had been established.
[Translation]
On the basis of the two examples just examined and with
particular attention to the wording of the advertisement published
by Health Canada, I am of the view that this situation is quite
different. On the one hand, the 1989 advertisement concerned
specific provisions of the GST legislation and was worded a style
that might be described as a categorical affirmation.
(1010)
On the other hand, the Health Canada advertisement appears to
me to be primarily of an informative nature: certain statements are
8988
made about the use of tobacco in Quebec, ending with the slogan
``J'appuie la loi anti-tabac-C'est une question de santé''.
As has been pointed out in discussions on that issue, there is
nothing that indicates that Bill C-71 has been enacted or even that a
particular provision of it will come into force on a specific date.
Also, the English version of the same advertisement refers to
``anti-tobacco legislation''. In my opinion, it cannot be concluded
that this advertisement gives the impression that the House has
already passed Bill C-71.
In the case before us, the Speaker's role is to determine whether
the Health Canada advertisement constitutes a prima facie breach
of the privileges of the House. Like the hon. member for Joliette, I
have been unable to find ``malicious intentions'' or an attempt at
``false representation'' on the part of the government
representatives.
Is this advertisement false and did it tend to diminish the
authority of the House in the eyes of the public? In the light of the
facts that have been presented to me, I do not think so and, in the
absence of evidence to that effect, the Speaker finds it impossible
to conclude that the advertisement in question is a prima facie
breach of the privileges of the House.
In a decision handed down on June 12, 1996 concerning
government advertising for Bill 33 on drug insurance, the Speaker
of the Quebec National Assembly, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau,
stated, at page 2094 of the Journal des débats:
The constituted authorities are fully entitled, in our political system, to publish
their decisions and choices affecting their area of jurisdiction.''
I share the views of Speaker Charbonneau. The government has
the right to communicate with the public and inform it of its
policies and its programs. On the other hand, where the
government issues communications to the public containing
allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to
choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of
these measures. The use of certain terms or, in the words of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House, ``colloquialisms that are not, strictly speaking, precise''
may occasionally give rise to unwanted interpretations.
[English]
Those whose duty it is to approve the wording of
communications to the public for a minister must surely be aware
that the terms used in parliamentary language have a very specific
meaning. Trying to avoid them or to use them for advertising
purposes shows a lack of consideration for the institution of
Parliament and the role of the members in the legislative process. If
there is no ambiguity in the choice of terms the public will be better
served and the House can get on with its work without being called
upon to resolve the difficulty caused by such misunderstanding.
[Translation]
Once again, I thank the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie
for bringing this matter to the attention of the Speaker.
_____________________________________________
8988
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
(1015)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of National
Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-89, an act to amend
the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-90, an act respecting depository bills and
notes and to make a related amendment to another act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Constitution Act,
1867.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to propose a
private member's bill. It seeks to impose a cap on the number of
members of the House of Commons at 301, which will be the new
number following the next election.
The bill respects all existing constitutional guarantees to such
provinces as Prince Edward Island and does not seek in any way to
ignore the reality of a place like Labrador where there are some
30,000 people on an enormous land mass. The bill proposes to limit
the number or cap it at the new number of 301 following the next
election because common sense would indicate that we simply
8989
cannot continue to add members to the House of Commons
continually as it would become an unmanageable size.
I am pleased to propose this bill today and I look forward to
engaging in debate on it when that time comes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition from a number of
constituents who point out that the 30,000 nuclear weapons which
exist in the world pose a threat to the health and survival of
humanity; that the most safe, sure and swift way to deal with the
threat of nuclear arms is to do away with them completely.
They ask that Parliament support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention for a
timetable for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents of
Comox-Alberni.
(1020 )
The first contains 516 signatures, which brings the total number
of signatures to over 6,000. This is significant since it represents
over 10 per cent of the voters in my riding.
The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration
of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 498 signatures.
The petitioners bring attention to the fact that British Columbia
has a senatorial selection act which allows for the election of
British Columbia senators. They also draw attention to the fact that
British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will resign his Senate seat
shortly.
Therefore, these petitioners call on Parliament to urge the
Governor General to appoint a duly elected person to the
forthcoming vacant British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada.
I fully concur with my constituents.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8989
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and
the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to
the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill and that 15 minutes before the
expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the
House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn
every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under
consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It has already
been decided that any recorded division requested with regard to
business pursuant to Standing Order 78 on March 13, 1997 be
deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders on March 17,
1997.
8990
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-32, an act to
amend the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments), from the
committee.
(1025 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, just as a point
of information, the hon. minister moved the motion on a point of
order. I wonder if that is the proper place for this motion to be
moved or whether it should be under government motions. Could
you clarify that for me?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The minister
moved it at the appropriate time as per Standing Order 78(2)(b)
which is during orders of the day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There are 60
motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report
stage of Bill C-32.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 8, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 50, 51 and 52
Group No. 3: Motion No. 4
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 6, 44 and 60.
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57
[Translation]
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 12 to 15.
[English]
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 16, 38, 58 and 59
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 40 and 41
Group No. 9: Motion No. 45
[Translation]
Group No. 10: Motions Nos. 47, 53, 55 and 56.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46,
48 and 49 to the House.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to withdraw a number of
amendments that I have proposed. The government tabled its
amendments this morning and they cover several areas in which I
had made requests. Unfortunately, I could not do this until today
when the government tabled its amendments.
I would like to withdraw Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18.
(1030 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member has withdrawn all her motions.
(Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18 withdrawn)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines
23 to 25 on page 2 with the following:
``wise include a copy made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the
country where the copy was made;''
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line
5 on page 30 with the following:
``with motive of gain.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version,
lines 25 and 26 on page 33 with the following:
``shall, in addition, mark the copy in the manner prescribed by''
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 35
with the following:
``if the newspaper or periodical was published more than one year before the copy is
made.''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version,
lines 10 and 11 on page 36 with the following:
``who is one of its patrons, but the copy given to the patron must not be in digital
form.''
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-32, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing, in the French version,
lines 18 to 21 on page 42 with the following:
``droit d'auteur le fait pour une personne agissant à la demande d'une personne
ayant une déficience perceptuelle, ou pour un organisme sans but lucratif agissant
dans l'intérêt de cette dernière, de se livrer à l'une des activités suivantes:''
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 53 with the
following:
``ferred to in section 67 may only make''
Motion No. 43
8991
That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing, in the English version,
(a) lines 28 and 29 on page 54 with the following:
``has reproduced the work, a maximum''
(b) line 34 on page 54 with the following:
``(a) under any agreement entered into with''
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 69 with the
following:
``in section 67 shall, on or before the''
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, is it necessary when withdrawing
motions to require unanimous consent of the House to withdraw
those motions?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): They are just
motions and they are the possession of the hon. member until they
are moved. Therefore she can withdraw them.
We also have Motion No. 48 in the name of the member for
Edmonton-Strathcona who is not here.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, we have an unfortunate situation
with a very ill member who has not able to attend the House today
for the debate.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House for
the motions presented in the name of the member for
Edmonton-Strathcona to be moved by the member for Kootenay
East, our critic in the area who is leading the debate for our party.
Would there be unanimous consent for those motions to have been
deemed moved and seconded?
(1035 )
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, before giving consent, I
understand the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is ill. We
accept that point. I hope the same spirit of co-operation the
government is showing will prevail. We would not be in favour of
many of those amendments and by not agreeing to the consent it
would be a very easy way of disposing of them.
For the sake of debate and under the circumstances we would
agree. We hope the same consideration and co-operation will be
shown during the debate and that there will not be any attempt to
delay the bill unduly today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 43 on page 71,
and lines 1 to 37 on page 72.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line
6 on page 72 with the following:
``royalties, in respect of each of the first three''
He said: Madam Speaker, I do not plan to debate this grouping at
any length because it mostly involves technical amendments by the
government with regard to technical language and whether the
French and English versions correspond.
I have a few remarks to make about the bill in general. Bill C-32
has gathered some publicity in the hearings and in public. The
government the bill is balanced. It takes into consideration the
creators and the users. It went before committee where there were
many witnesses. We received almost 200 briefs. I am sure members
of the committee received an equal number of letters touching on
the bill.
I take this opportunity to single out the role of the committee in
this regard. Considering the way the bill was handled members of
all parties exhibited consistency in the committee hearings. The
members showed up consistently, asked quality questions, listened
to the witnesses and dealt with some issues. There was a lot of
movement from the beginning of the hearings to the end. I
congratulate members from all parties.
All the amendments in Group No. 1 are technical amendments.
Some are consequential and result from changes made by the
standing committee. We made many amendments and might have
missed a little word here or there along the way. Other amendments
are required to maintain consistency between the English and the
French texts.
[Translation]
I will not discuss these amendments in detail. These
amendments concern technicalities. I can assure you that the
government support these amendments, and I believe that, if
opposition members take a close look at them, they will see that
these are only technical amendments.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I rise to speak today as
official opposition critic for heritage and culture. I am proud
because this is a bill which sets politics aside and addresses
copyright. It addresses the moral and economic rights of creators
over their works.
(1040)
I would remind members that Bill C-32 is the second stage in an
effort to update a law drafted in 1924, which was amended for the
first time in 1988. This bill affects creators and authors who have
waited years to see their rights finally modernized and brought into
8992
line with the economic and cultural activities of modern society,
including the use of new technologies.
In 1988, phase I of the bill, the review phase, extended copyright
protection to computer programs. It also gave creators additional
moral rights over their works. In addition, it modernized the
Copyright Appeal Board, now known as the Copyright Board.
Finally, in 1988, an extremely pivotal development took place:
collective societies were recognized. There was recognition of the
right of authors and creators to be represented by an organization
that, through its efforts, would oversee the use of authors' and
creators' works, collect royalties and levies and distribute them to
artists. This recognition of collective societies is becoming
important. We will see in the latest phase, Bill C-32, how this
collective society was an issue when the bill was being studied.
Between 1988 and 1994, there were several amendments to the
Copyright Act so that the government could meet its obligations
under the free trade agreements, NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization.
Finally, last April, the government, in response to pressure from
the official opposition, tabled Bill C-32 in phase II of the review
process and, in so doing, introduced some new and very important
rights called neighbouring rights, which are granted to performers
and producers. Performers' rights had not yet been recognized,
although they are recognized in 50 countries which signed what is
known as the Rome Convention. Canada dragged its feet but finally
decided in the course of this session to table this bill and introduce
neighbouring rights.
It also set up what is referred to as a private copying
compensation system. When the committee held its hearings, many
groups came to submit their briefs and talk to committee members.
As we all know, tape-recording for personal use is common
practice. Even the Consumers' Association of Canada agreed.
Everyone copies music and songs on tapes. Everyone records tapes,
people pass them along, and so forth. Everyone agreed this was
common practice.
In its bill, the government introduced a compensation system for
private copying, which finally recognizes the rights of creators and
authors by collecting a levy directly from the manufacturer. This
levy will be redistributed as a kind of basic salary among all
creators and authors, which we think is only fair. Later on I will tell
you how many millions of dollars performers lose as a result of
pirating alone.
(1045)
The bill also establishes book distribution rights for Canada,
thereby strengthening the position of our book distributors, which
is most welcome as a way to protect our culture. Finally, it
improves procedures with respect to the avenues of legal recourse
available to performers and to the applicable sanctions in case of
fraud or if users refuse to comply with the law and pay royalties to
the authors and creators who need this income to survive.
The average performer's salary is between $7,000 and $14,000,
depending on whether the performer is a performing artist, a singer,
a composer, an author or something else.
So this was a much needed improvement. However, there was a
big black cloud hovering over this bill: the exceptions.
When copyright legislation is drafted so that authors and
creators can make a living wage by collecting royalties, that is fine.
But when the bill goes on to explain for pages and pages that
authors and creators are not entitled to royalties in the case of
cegeps, colleges, educational institutions, libraries, and many other
sectors that are exempted from paying copyright, I think this is a
very black cloud indeed. I will get back to this later on when we
consider the amendments.
Bill C-32, phase II, is most welcome. It is welcomed by the
entire artistic community, particularly in the case of neighbouring
rights, by performers, including Quebec performers, whose work is
played in francophone countries and who receive no royalties
because Canada is not one of the 50 signatories of the Rome
Convention.
With respect to neighbouring rights, let us recall that the Bloc
Quebecois had called upon the government to table this bill and
made a commitment to support it, provided it made specific
reference to neighbouring rights.
We have respected that commitment and will continue today to
support the government's bill, with its extremely important
dimension for all artists: neighbouring rights.
As for private copying, and all this piracy using blank tapes, let
us recall that what the government is introducing in the bill is a
royalty charged directly to the manufacturer, which eventually
becomes a salary for the artists.
This measure will enable artists, who are literally being robbed
by illegal copying, to receive what is termed a fair share of what is
owed to them.
I would like to remind you that, throughout the committee stage,
the Bloc Quebecois brought in a series of amendments. I wish to
congratulate my committee colleagues, for we accomplished a
huge task. First of all, we received, heard and exchanged views
with over 65 groups, who came to testify before the committee. I
must say that all of my colleagues on the committee listened to the
evidence and asked questions with a very open mind, particularly
in the search to enhance the objectives of the bill. I wish to again
congratulate them on their work in committee.
8993
I would, however, like to draw the government's attention to
the amendments presented by the Bloc, and to point out that it
would be important to support the amendments we are presenting
at the report stage, simply because they concern the interests of
authors and creators, not the political interests of one party, but
the interests of authors and creators.
I invite the government to support the Bloc Quebecois
amendments.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
Reform Party fully acknowledges the necessity of the revisions for
the Copyright Act. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party would be
very supportive of a well thought out process which would achieve
that objective. Unfortunately this bill does not represent that well
thought out approach.
(1050)
The bill was initially tabled on April 23, 1996. It had second
reading on June 4, 1996 and there was a briefing meeting with
officials from industry and heritage on June 18, 1996. It was at that
meeting that we had our first indication that the bill, indeed this
entire effort on the part of the heritage minister, was in great
trouble.
There were a number of questions that I had posed at that
briefing meeting that it seemed to me the officials, with all due
respect, were completely unprepared for. Many parts of the bill,
unfortunately, had not been thought through at all.
When the minister made her presentation to the committee,
which I believe was in September 1996, she was basically working
from briefing notes and had not grasped the implications or the
problems which the bill she was proposing would create both for
the creators and for the users of the work that comes under
copyright legislation.
The process, unfortunately, went further off track in my
judgment in that the committee also decided, against my
protestations, to have the selection of witnesses in camera. There
was a deletion of concerned parties to the bill. There was a period
of time when there was a tremendous amount of unhappiness about
that.
I must say that during the process of the crammed committee
hearings there developed a tremendous spirit of co-operation
among the members of the committee.
As with the member who spoke before me, I would like to pay
tremendous respect to the members of the committee from all
parties who worked in that spirit of co-operation. I would
particularly like to say that the work of the parliamentary secretary
and the work of the chair of the committee aided the process, and I
commend them for that.
It was unfortunate that the spirit of co-operation, although it was
leading to a very productive process of making necessary changes
and improvements to the bill, ended up being seriously side
tracked. As a matter of fact, it was fully derailed in a massive train
wreck by the heritage minister.
It seems to me that basically what happened was she came to the
conclusion that since becoming heritage minister she really had not
accomplished anything and suddenly decided-
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In
the spirit of co-operation and in the spirit of the rules and
regulations of the House the hon. member has some flexibility.
However, to openly get into a debate and criticize other hon.
members of the House with respect to the process I do not believe
is fair. I do not think that is called for at report stage. It is more of a
political debate and I think we should address ourselves to what is
on the table.
Mr. Abbott: 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.
(1055)
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.
8994
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(1125 )
After the taking of the vote:
Mr. Vanclief: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think there
were some members who came into the House after you read the
question and they voted. There were others who came into the
House after you read the question who did not vote. I would
suggest that those who came in, took their seat and voted after the
question was read have their name removed from the list.
Mr. Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I was one of those who came in
late and did not vote and I would like my vote recorded with my
party.
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, on account of the vote being
held ahead of schedule, I missed the vote. Had I been here I would
have voted with my party.
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, had I been in the House when the
vote was taken I would have voted with my party.
Mr. Maloney: Madam Speaker, I also came in late. I guess the
vote was moved up a bit. Had I been here I would have voted with
my party as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I was late, but had I been here I
would have voted with my party.
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I am in the same situation as the
member for Bourassa.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, had I been here on time I
would have voted with my party on the motion.
Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, I arrived here on time and I did
vote with my party.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, when I arrived at my seat, the
whips were just passing by. In view of the technicality that I may
not have been in my seat at the proper time, I did vote in support of
the motion but if I was late then I would stand on record as having
supporting this motion.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I was here on
time. I just want to make sure you know I did vote with my party.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, since a 30 minute bell is now a
24 minute period I would like to go on record as supporting this
motion.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, a further problem we have
compounding this vote is that some members who voted before the
announcement of the vote have left the Chamber again. The
Minister of National Defence is one but there are perhaps others. I
do not think that is in order. I am not sure what we should do about
that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In order to
vote, members have to be in their seats at the moment that the
question is put and stay in their seats until the result of the vote is
pronounced by the clerk.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, due to the confusion because of the
timing of the bell and the early walk by the whips and because it
appears that some members voted who were not in their seats in
accordance with the directive you just put, and that some members
left after voting before the results were read, I move that we vote
again.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I know it is your duty of course to
maintain order and to make sure things are done in an orderly
fashion. There is some problems with members having left before
the vote was announced.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On that point
of order I have already clarified. There are some members who
have left and there were some members who were not in the House
when I called the question and still they did not rise. We will now
go to the result of the question.
(1135 )
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the clarification of the
rules. I would like now to ask you what we do if the rules have been
contravened. What do we do if several people have voted on the
motion and have left the House? If we know of such people, or if
8995
there are such people, how will you know who they are? I know the
rules, but how will you know who they are if they have left the
House? What do you do about that?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will now ask
the clerk to read the results of the vote and thereafter we will
proceed with any other points of order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 259)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Blaikie
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Gilmour
Gouk
Grubel
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Mayfield
Ramsay
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)-18
NAYS
Members
Arseneault
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bertrand
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godin
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Jackson
Jordan
Kirkby
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Patry
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Walker
Young-84
PAIRED MEMBERS
Nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion defeated.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I still would like you to explain
how we know for use if that vote was the vote which accurately
reflected the vote of the number of people who stayed in their seats
until the vote was announced. I mentioned one person specifically
who left the Chamber before the announcement of the vote. That
person, of course, cannot be counted. Because of what took place, I
do not know if that person was counted or not. I brought it to your
attention but I am not sure if it is included in the 84 or not.
I would like you to let me know how I can be sure who got called
and who voted where because some people left in the middle of it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is not a
written rule but a question of convention and I think of respect for
the responsibility of the House to be in your seat at the time the
question is called and to remain in your seat. It is a question of
respect and convention. It does not invalidate the results of the
vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the
point of order raised by my colleague from the Reform Party. I
think the only way to respond to his question is to see tomorrow
who voted. And if they think someone was absent, they can then
raise it in the House. I imagine that the person who is absent will
say he was, and we will see whether that changes the outcome.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I think what we are seeing here
today is the fruit of three years of sloppiness with respect to this
rule. It used to be very hard and fast, even though not a rule but a
convention, that people would have to be in the House and would
not be able to leave until the results of the vote were read.
(1140 )
I have noticed that in this Parliament, and maybe even toward
the end of the last Parliament, this rule became more and more
relaxed. People were coming in and going out. We cannot decide,
all of a sudden, that today we are going to enforce the convention
that, frankly, almost everyone has been ignoring for three years.
If we want to restore that convention, I think it would be a good
idea but we need to say collectively that we want to restore and
respect that convention.
In the same vein there is another convention, that there is a30 minute bell and the vote is taken after 30 minutes. If we want to
start playing around with that convention, as we did today, through
the collusion between the government and the official opposition,
then we will have a real problem on our hands. I do not sit on
committees, but for the sake of people who are on committees, who
are hearing witnesses, they may proceed to hear a witness because
they know they have 15 minutes, but when they get here they find
the vote has already taken place. Do we want to introduce another
8996
dimension of unpredictability into what is already an unpredictable
place? I think that would be a serious mistake.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on this but I also ask all
members of the House to reflect on this. Once we start to play
around with a convention it slips away and we have another layer of
chaos on top of an already very chaotic place. I see what has
happened today as being very regrettable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I thank the
hon. member for his point of order. We will do some research on
this convention and we will report back to the House on our
findings.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, if the House would give its consent
to refer the matter you just described to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs for examination, that committee
could report back to the House about the convention and make a
recommendation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am informed
that the committee does have the power to do that if it so wishes.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall
also apply to Motions Nos. 8 to 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1145)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on Motion No. 48 stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, did you call for debate on that
motion? It seems that you read the motion and you just said, ``all
those in favour''. Did you call for debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It was debated.
It was part of Group No. 1. There was a motion put to stop the
debate, and Motion No. 48 is part of that vote. All the questions on
the motions in Group No. 1 have been put.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, may I request clarification on
Motion No. 48? You are correct that debate began after the motion
was moved and after the House gave its consent to the moving of
that motion as part of the first group. When you called the vote, I
heard many nays. I did not hear one yea. Does that mean the motion
was defeated?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
has been deferred until the end of the debate.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, has Motion No. 49 in Group
No. 1 been voted on?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Motion No. 48
will be voted on separately and in consequence Motion No. 49 will
be voted on according to the result of the vote on Motion No. 48.
The vote on Motion No. 49 depends on the outcome of the vote on
Motion No. 48.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, we completed the vote on
Motion No. 48 already. It was defeated unanimously-
8997
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It was
deferred. The entire group was deferred. Motion No. 48 was
deferred. Motion No. 49 is deferred automatically.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I do not want to delay things
but I have the report stage order from the Table. It says that the
question on Motion No. 49 is put if the question on Motion No. 48
is negatived. Motion No. 48 was negatived but Motion No. 49 was
not put.
Before we move on to Group No. 2, I would ask that the question
on Motion No. 49 be put.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I repeat to the
hon. parliamentary secretary that the vote on Motion No. 48 has
been deferred.
We will now move to Group No. 2.
(1150 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) 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''
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32 and to reflect a bit on my own
experience as a broadcaster.
An hon. member: Conflict.
Mr. Solberg: I want to declare my background right off the bat
so that people do not suggest I am in conflict, which I thought I
heard from across the way.
As someone who comes from a broadcasting background, it is
important to point out that there are many aspects of Bill C-32 that
do not reflect the reality of broadcasting across the country today.
Indeed, in Bill C-32 we see all kinds of impediments to doing what
I think the government is hoping to do through this legislation. The
government seems to want to protect the rights of copyright holders
and to ensure that ultimately Canadian culture is strengthened.
Unfortunately some aspects of Bill C-32 actually prevent that from
happening and I want to touch on some of them.
One of the concerns I have as a broadcaster by trade, and I think I
can speak with a little authority on this, is the whole aspect of time
shifting. One of the concerns that broadcasters have raised over and
over again is that the legislation does not permit broadcasters to
delay the broadcast of a television or radio program and replay it at
a later date without incurring additional expense and seeking the
permission from the holders of the rights to do that.
It makes it extremely difficult for a small radio station or small
broadcast outlet to seek the permission of the various rights'
holders to do that. It escapes me why when there has been such a
strong lobby from people in the broadcast industry to make what is
just a common sense change that the government has failed utterly
to do that.
I know some members on the other side are trying to make that
happen and some amendments have been proposed. We are very
happy that members on the other side are trying to do that. For nine
years this legislation has been in the works. For nine years people
have made the same point over and over again to successive
governments. Apparently their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It is a
common sense change.
(1155)
If that type of change is not made, it is going to hurt Canadian
content. It is going to hurt the ability of broadcasters to broadcast
local parades on the community cable channel. It is going to hurt
the ability of broadcasters to do the sorts of things that have made
them an integral part of the Canadian cultural scene. That is one of
the major problems that many broadcasters have with this
legislation.
Something else that concerns me very much is the whole idea of
transfer of format. A new reality in the broadcast industry-it has
been a reality for a few years now-is that many broadcasters have
to transfer a recording from, for instance, a CD on to the electronic
format, to the computer.
One of the things the government has resisted forever is allowing
broadcasters the right to make that transfer without subjecting
themselves to a legal challenge. In fact, broadcasters have raised
that over and over again. It is quite possible that, by going ahead
and transferring something from CD on to computer, the rights'
8998
holders will then ask that they be paid for the privilege of having
their music transferred on to a computer.
The computer then plays it over the air. Under that circumstance,
broadcasters will have to pay the right's holder already. Potentially
radio and television broadcasters are being charged a couple of
times for something that really has only the effect of being played
once on the air. In other words, the holder of the rights suffers no
commercial loss. However, it imposes a tremendous burden on the
broadcasters.
That is something that needs to be pointed out. Broadcasters
have been very patient with the government on this point. They
have raised it over and over ad nauseam. Somehow the government
has failed to see the value in this approach. All the broadcasters are
asking for is a common sense exemption.
In order to make the point more fully, it is important to mention
the role that broadcasters play in the Canadian cultural scene. For a
number of years, broadcasters have had regulations imposed on
them whereby they have to play 30 per cent Canadian content.
They play thousands and thousands, really millions, of hours worth
of music every year to promote Canadian artists and composers.
Under previous legislation, the composers received all kinds of
money back from the broadcasters through the current copyright
legislation.
The artists made millions of dollars by selling their records.
There was a quid pro quo exchange between the broadcasters who
were able to give the artists all kinds of what amounts to free
promotion on the air and the radio stations were able to use the
music to attract listeners and, ultimately, to sell advertising and
make a profit.
It was a system that worked extremely well. For reasons that
escape me, the government has decided to change something that is
not broken, to fix a problem that did not need fixing and has caused
a firestorm of controversy.
That has been reflected not only in opposition from parties like
the Reform Party but even among Liberal ranks where a number of
people have great concerns about what is being proposed. A
number of members on the other side have propose amendments
and have spoken out quite strongly against this legislation.
That should not be lost on us because it takes considerable
courage to do that in the Liberal Party, knowing that the
government may slap sanctions on those members. Some of them
will not be rewarded when it comes time for the Prime Minister to
hand out some of the goodies that he is able to hand out. We should
note that they have done this. It points to how serious they feel an
assault it is on their community radio stations and ultimately on the
cultural sector.
(1200)
For a number of years radio stations in Canada have been in a
perilous position. Many of them lose money today. Most AM radio
stations are in a position where they simply cannot make ends
meet. The government is somehow insensitive to this fact and is
slapping all kinds of new regulations on broadcasters of various
sizes. The ultimate result will be that they will be bearing new
costs.
We have made a point of saying over and over and over again
that high taxes and regulation kill jobs in the Canadian economy. I
do not think we want to kill the jobs created by Canadian radio
stations that provide tremendous services to their local
communities, reflect the values of their local communities, and
completely bring together all disparate strands in the local
community in one place so that people understand what is
happening on a daily basis, in fact every minute of every day. This
is something that happens through no other media form.
We should be sensitive to this point and ensure that bills like Bill
C-32 do not end up killing a very important institution like
Canadian radio broadcasting.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate to clarify a
few points.
There was some concern in the Reform Party with regard to the
ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions. That opinion was
expressed in committee by a number of members. The government
listened to the members, our caucus, the opposition and the
witnesses, and they are in the bill. There is an ephemeral exception.
There is a transfer of format exception. I take the member at his
word. If they are in there he will support them and the process will
be speedy. That is why they are there. That is part of the negotiation
game.
After the amendments came out of the committee in December
there were concerns that perhaps telethons and Santa Claus parades
were not protected. We felt they were already in the bill, but the
government decided to clarify them even more. The amendments
are there.
With regard to whether they got the amendments late and did not
get a chance to analyse them, to a certain extent that is fair game
but in written form they only had them today.
Last evening I had a chance to indicate to the hon. member that
ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions, telethons or whatever
were there and that I would be available to meet with him after to
explain the amendments.
We are parliamentarians. There should be respect and honour in
this place. The bill is before the House. We were fair with the way
8999
in which we handled a situation the Reform Party asked about this
morning. We collaborated and we would like to see the same
collaboration.
For instance, putting up speakers for the sake of speaking is not a
way of collaborating. The hon. member who just spoke is very
knowledgeable of the subject. He also spoke when it was first
introduced in the House. I appreciate some of the comments he
made. It gave me a chance to reflect.
However his comments would have been better placed in Group
No. 7 which deals with ephemeral, transfer of format, telethons and
radio stations rather than Group No. 2.
Mr. Solberg: I will speak then.
Mr. Arseneault: You have already spoken. I have heard that
message.
We have clarified those aspects. There is ephemeral. There is
transfer of format. I look forward to the support of the Reform
Party on the bill rather than delay and delay and delay. The time has
come to get on with it. There is other business of the House than
Bill C-32 that we must get on with. This is a very important bill.
The producers, the creators and the users have been waiting for the
bill.
(1205)
What damage are we doing to the relationship between the
creators and the users if we continually say that this is here and that
is there and it is not so? It is important to create a good working
relationship. Both sides want this clarified now, right away.
That is what we are doing. We have put forward the bill. We have
our amendments and we are putting them forward today. Let us
clarify it and get on with the work of the House so that the creators
and the users can get on with their business as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on
Bill C-32.
The first time I spoke in the House, on January 24, 1994, I
immediately announced where I stood. I said: ``Moving to the
complex issue of copyright, I would like to point out that creators
are currently out in the cold and that the government will have to
act quickly by tabling as soon as possible a bill to correct this
unfortunate situation''.
I am delighted that the government has tabled this bill, that we
are now at report stage and that very extensive amendments have
been made. We know that we will have to keep up our efforts,
because the bill is not completely finished, there will be a Phase III,
but I am very pleased to see Phase II being wrapped up.
I would urge the third party to give its co-operation so that we
can proceed with debate on a non-partisan basis and move quickly
to give creators in Canada a bill that will help them improve their
living conditions.
I think it extremely important that we leave partisan politics
behind in this issue, and it is upsetting that the member for
Medicine Hat spent 10 minutes telling us that he comes from a
broadcasting background and forgot to mention that the bill
requires a radio station to make over $1.25 million in advertising
revenue before it is required to pay royalties. In other words, the
station is required to pay only $100.
He spoke for 10 minutes but did not mention this fundamental
fact. It is an objective piece of information contained in the bill and
I think the member for Medicine Hat acted in very bad faith by
failing to mention it when he spoke in the House.
The purpose of Bill C-32 is to amend the Copyright Act, which
was passed in 1924. The first review of this act, in 1988, solved
certain problems, notably by increasing creators' moral rights over
their works and recognizing the organization of copyright holders
into collective societies. The mandate of these societies is to
authorize, on behalf of their members, public performances and
reproductions, and to collect and distribute royalties or levies
payable in exchange for these authorizations.
Society has evolved considerably since then, and there have been
artistic, technological and legal developments in the cultural
industry. Internationally, intellectual property has become a
resource just as important as money or natural resources. New
techniques have led to an explosion in artistic distribution and it is
our responsibility as legislators to ensure that creators are protected
by law.
The Bloc Quebecois has resolutely supported creators in all
sectors of the cultural industry. Our efforts seem to have been
successful because a number of amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois have been adopted by the heritage committee in one
form or another, and we are pleased that we have kept a watchful
eye on this bill so that there is finally something to show for
creators in Canada.
The bill's amendments to the Copyright Act deal primarily with
recognition of performers' and producers' neighbouring rights, the
establishment of royalties for private copies and the definition of
exceptions to creators' rights.
(1210)
I mentioned earlier that when radio stations broadcast music or
songs, authors and composers receive copyright fees, while
performers, musicians and producers do not. Bill C-32 provides a
remedy in this respect. Now, musicians, performers and producers
will also benefit from neighbouring rights.
9000
These rights are recognized in the 50 countries that signed the
Rome Convention. Once Parliament has passed this bill, Canada
will be able to sign the convention, and our performers will also
be able to benefit from this protection when their work is
distributed abroad, and collect royalties as well.
According to a report prepared for the Department of Canadian
Heritage, neighbouring rights are an important tool for the future,
especially with the advent of digital cable radio which will
broadcast good music, uninterrupted by radio hosts or
commercials. This type of broadcast will be a major source of
income for artist-performers and record producers if the
neighbouring rights system is introduced. That is why it is so
important to proceed diligently with this bill.
Most payments for neighbouring rights will indeed be made by
radio stations. As I said before, the bill provides that their income
must be in excess of $1.25 million before they have to pay
royalties. Otherwise, the fee will be only symbolic, as it will be
$100.
Another interesting point is that the bill provides for a legislative
review of the act in five years, which will be an opportunity to
make some adjustments based on our experience with this
legislation. We believe, unlike the hon. member for Medicine Hat,
that the concessions made to broadcasters are a little too generous
and should perhaps be reviewed downward.
However, it is rather unfortunate that the government did not
recognize this right in the case of creators in the audiovisual sector.
I hope that in phase III, which will come as soon as possible, the
emphasis will be mainly on the audiovisual sector and
photography.
As for private copies, every year, millions of audio and video
cassettes are sold in this country. Many customers use these
cassettes to copy the works of creators without paying copyright,
thus depriving them of their living.
For instance, out of 44 million blank audio cassettes sold in this
country last year, it is estimated that 39 million were used to make
private copies of sound recordings of composers or performers.
These copies made at home apparently cost the audio recording
industry as much as $324.7 million per year.
Fortunately, the bill provides some compensation by providing
for a levy that will be collected from manufacturers or importers of
blank audio tapes, and subsequently distributed among authors,
composers, performers and record companies.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this kind of measure which already
exists in 25 countries, and it has insisted that the amount of the levy
be set by the Copyright Board, which is in a position to determine
what is fair compensation for the creator, while allowing for the
consumer's ability to pay. We appreciate the fact that the Copyright
Board has been closely involved in the preparations for this bill and
the follow-up, because so far, the board has shown that it is capable
of doing an outstanding job.
However, we regret the fact that these rights do not apply as well
to video tapes, which leaves creators in the audiovisual sector in
limbo.
The bill provides that libraries, educational institutions,
museums and archival services will, to a certain extent, be
exempted from paying copyright.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that these exemptions which
deprive the persons concerned of their due will be difficult to
administer and may lead to court cases. Although the exempt
institutions are concerned with education and culture, we believe
that the support they need should come from government, and that
authors who already pay taxes should not have to subsidize them by
forgoing income.
(1215)
The Bloc Quebecois would have preferred to see the legislator
leave the question of copyright to the various parties involved. The
agreements currently in place between collective societies and
users prove that this type of mechanism does work.
Nevertheless, the heritage committee is to be congratulated for
having made great strides in tightening up the numerous exceptions
in the original version of the bill.
Finally, we must point out the heritage committee's efforts to
bring the bill more in line with the concerns of the interested
parties. The Bloc Quebecois has presented some 75 amendments, a
number of which were accepted by the government, which has
finally lent an ear to the artists' legitimate demands. Let us hope
that, in future, the government will accept the beneficial influence
of the Bloc Quebecois in other areas.
The government must continue to modernize its legislation, and
must begin right away to identify the modifications required for
Canada to recognize neighbouring rights on videotapes, and the
mechanisms required to protect the rights of our artists as the
information highway expands.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this bill and these clauses today.
This bill has created a lot of problems for many of my
constituents, across the whole range of the clauses dealt with in the
bill. In particular, I received yesterday a letter from a company in
my riding. That company, for the last 75 years, has been supplying
bookstores. As a result of the changes which are being made by this
bill, which they see as a major distortion of the marketplace under
the excuse of protecting Canadian culture, the book market will be
disrupted and it will be very bad for consumers.
9001
This company and my constituents have urged me to bring to
the attention of the House the fact that this bill will be a major
disadvantage to consumers. It will protect Canadian distributors
of books when libraries and universities could have much better
direct access to wholesalers in the United States. The
protectionism in the bill will not protect Canadian culture at all,
it will simply drive up prices and create a very restrictive market
within Canada.
I wanted to get that on record. Not only in the many areas that
have been discussed earlier but in the area of book distribution this
bill is a major problem.
Amendments were introduced today at a moment's notice to the
House. We have not had the time to review them properly. We are
appalled at the speed at which this bill is moving through the
House.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.
(1220 )
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.
9002
(1225)
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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-32.
Before I get into my presentation I think it is proper to mention
once again that the procedure we are going through today is really
an affront to people who like to do a good job of analyzing
legislation, who like to go into detail and make detailed
amendments. There are obviously several things wrong.
First, the bill is so hopelessly flawed that the Minister of
Industry and the minister of neighbouring rights spend time in the
papers decrying one another's position. There is not even
unanimity in the cabinet on this bill. This bill is not the answer for
the broadcasting industry in Canada.
Today we have had phone calls in Reform Party offices from
both sides. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has
problems with neighbouring rights and with some of the provisions
of the bill as originally tabled. SOCAN, the society of Canadian
artists, also has concerns in favour of neighbouring rights. Between
the two we find they are both against it for exactly the opposite
reasons. One group is against it because it says it gives to much
power or too much economic deterrent to playing Canadian
content. Canadian artists are saying that this does not give enough
power and coinage in the pockets of artists.
What do we take from this? I think we take from this that the
government has botched this bill from the beginning to the end.
The government does not have support in the broadcasting
industry. It does not have support among artists. Who then is the
government doing it for? What is the purpose of this bill?
(1230 )
Every time the Canadian heritage minister muses in the press
about what she would like to see the broadcasting industry look
like, the alarm bells go off from one end of the country to the other,
for different reasons. When she muses, as she did a couple of week
ago, that perhaps we should double the amount of Canadian content
on the radio, what happens then?
I can tell members what happens. The broadcasters in my area
tell me that there is a limited amount of Canadian content. What we
have is pretty good stuff and people enjoy it. But if broadcasters are
asked to play twice as much, they are going to take the songs which
are already heavily played and play them every other time.
If we hear Celine Dion-and I like Celine Dion, I have her tapes
and her CDs-her songs would have to be played every second
time because there is not enough Canadian content to double the
amount without causing chaos in the industry.
When you live in an area like I do, or like most Canadians do,
within broadcasting distance of the United States, the government
can only jack around the listener so much until the listener says:
``You know, I do not have to listen to this. I have choices. I can
crank my dial''.
Advertising dollars are now going down to Bellingham because
people are saying: ``I just cannot put up with this any more. I do not
have any say about what kind of stuff is going on the radio. There is
so much government regulation and bureaucracy that I am not sure
of the quality of the product. The regulations, the hoop-jumping is
so onerous, what is the point?'' Therefore, advertisers are not
putting their money into Canadian markets, they are putting into
neighbouring markets, taking it south of the border and it is being
beamed back into Canada.
Our advertising dollars are flowing south when they should, in
my case, be staying in Chilliwack and Abbotsford and recirculated
there. A lot of the advertisers and broadcasters are losing heart.
When the minister starts musing in the press about doubling the
amount of Canadian content it sends a shiver up everybody's spine.
They wonder what on earth she is talking about. There is not
enough content to do that.
Another musing by the minister is when she talks about
Canadian content. The rules are so screwy that with stars like
Celine Dion and Bryan Adams, their music cannot be played
because it is
9003
not Canadian enough. They are Canadians. They qualify as
Canadians and I do not think anybody is going to deny that.
However, they are not Canadian enough under the rules.
What happens? Bryan Adams, whose producer may not be
Canadian, does not get the Canadian content benefit because he has
too many banjo players or whatever who are not Canadians. He
cannot meet the rules. That person is cut off and does not qualify as
a Canadian artist. Again, that is a shame because a lot of Canadians
identify Bryan Adams as a Canadian rock star and think they
should be able to listen to him and call him a Canadian artist, as I
do.
Furthermore, when the minister went so far as to say that if it
was not for the kinds of rules we are debating today, Celine Dion
would be picking berries in some backwoods somewhere, never
having achieved stardom, well, I do not know. Every time I see
Celine Dion or listen to her music, I think this superstar blows the
socks off most of the world with some of the best selling CDs,
records and tapes of all time. To think that the minister said there
was no way she could have made it if we had not had these content
rules or this kind of regulation is farcical. It is just not true. No one
can possibly believe that Celine Dion would be anything but a
superstar regardless. That is my second point.
(1235)
The first point concerned her musing about doubling the amount
of Canadian content that must be played. That is just not possible. I
do not know what she is doing. It scares the pants off a lot of
broadcasters in Canada and it is something I wish she would refrain
from doing because of the sight that would be.
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there is an inconsistency
between what she is demanding and what the industry minister is
demanding. The industry minister wants to strengthen the industry
without getting into the malarkey that has been proposed in this bill
and others. It is one thing to strengthen the industry but it is another
to just throw rules in its way so they can neither do business or
industry or broadcasting well.
The third thing I would like to mention is a concern of the
broadcasters with regard to transferring music from CDs to digital
computers. I have been through the Fraser Valley Broadcasting
Group facilities a couple of times. It has had a complete
technological revolution in the last three years. There has been a
complete upheaval in the industry. It is an upheaval that involves
the computer and digital recording. It also involves the opening up
of a competitiveness between the players and the industry that are
trying to play by the rules that this minister seems to dream up on
her way to the coffee shop in the morning.
The industry needs stability. It needs to know that when it wants
to transfer this stuff from CD to digital it can. It wants to know that
it is not going to contravene some rules. It does not want to sort of
get away with it when technically it is at fault. That is the problem
with this bill. There are so many amendments, so many mistakes
and it is so poorly drafted that everyone, from broadcasters to
artists to consumers to legislators, are concerned enough that they
are saying this bill should be stopped until it is cleaned up and the
direction of it clearly given and that has not been done.
The minister should withdraw this bill until she has assured all
the players that something proper is going to be done.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, this bill as it is currently constituted is of great
concern to broadcasters. It is of great concern in respect to
neighbouring rights.
There is a reduction in the neighbouring rights phase-in period.
It removes the criteria that would require that the value of air play
and volume of music use be factored into neighbouring future
rights tariffs.
There is a rebalancing in light of the ephemeral exception.
Particularly the radio end of it sees it as being too narrow a
proposal. Many of us in this arena certainly use radio to a fair
degree. I know it is probably the major media, other than the print
media, in many of our experiences.
Many small radio stations in the country perform a very valuable
service. Indeed, those radio stations need to transfer their medium
on occasion. Many of them are using 30-year old technology. As a
consequence, they are trapped into making these ephemeral
changes. It is a major upgrade to get away from that. It is certainly
not doing anyone any harm that they continue with this.
(1240 )
I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters
that is worthwhile for me to operate from in this area.
Certainly these private radio broadcasters and some of the
private television broadcasters wish to counter any suggestion that
the proposed amendment meets broadcasters requirements as they
have articulated them. This material has been conveyed to the
government and there is still great concern about the present
wording of the clause.
It was not very long ago when I was spending some time in my
vehicle and heard an interview on CBC radio. Many Canadians
enjoy CBC radio. I am one of them. The value of CBC radio to
Canadian broadcasters in the development of Canadian recording
artists and so on became readily apparent in the anecdotal evidence
that was being presented by artists, by people doing the recordings,
by promoters and by others.
Sometimes we lose sight of what is the key issue in levelling the
playing field or developing Canadian artists. One of the other
examples that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters talk about
has to do with episodes of local talent or variety shows. These are
9004
taped in clusters for broadcast throughout the season to make them
economically viable.
This bill, as it currently reads, requires that these tapes be
destroyed 30 days after taping rather than as it is in competing
countries like the U.S. and the U.K. where time starts running after
the first broadcast. This seems like a very legitimate concern.
Then the association gives some other specific examples. Very
often, rather than talking in broad terms if we can actually look to
examples, we can see the flaws in what is being proposed in
legislative and other initiatives much better.
This letter talks about CKCO's Kitchener Octoberfest parade.
This is recorded by a station and tape delayed for time zone
purposes by corporate sister companies in the west, part of the
Baton Broadcasting in this case. The exception only applies to
stations in formal networks of which there are very few in Canada.
Mr. Arseneault: We have changed that. We clarified it.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you. Programs and program segments
recorded without a public audience such as spots to promote
Canadian musicians on CTV's ``Canada AM'' and so on state in
this letter that because the exception tries to restrict itself to event
programming and does so by requiring a public performance at the
same time as a reproduction is made, this also constitutes lack of
qualification for this kind of programming.
The broadcasters talk about some other absurdities, as they call
them, in the bill. They are highlighted by a requirement that copies
of these ephemeral reproductions can only be kept beyond 30 days
if an official archive accepts their deposits on the basis of their
exceptional documentary character.
(1245 )
Broadcasters really should be allowed to keep their own archival
copies in house. I think this would be a great loss to Canadian
society if we were to create this kind of concern. They would like to
reuse them possibly in the future and they would be quite happy to
pay a licence fee at that time. This would also of course create quite
a burden for national archives should this kind of provision remain.
The bottom line of what the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters is saying is that unless these flaws are corrected,
programming would remain at risk because of the administrative
burdens and the economic burdens through trying to clear this
hurdle on rights clearance.
This would affect Canadian viewers who want to have a good
look at programs about their local area. It would affect charities
relying on broadcast based fund raising. It would have its impact
on Canadian talent and there are other provisions that would be
detrimental to French language music and programming. These
would be the main people who would suffer the neighbouring rights
provisions.
I find this whole episode this morning of most concern. I know
this bill and these amendments are of great concern to many
Canadians. Sometimes what goes on in this place ends up in the
form of partisan gamesmanship or something quite
non-productive. It is my hope and my wish that we can move
forward, make the enlightened amendments that are required in
order to make this a bill that Canadians will find progressive,
productive and that will indeed assist Canadian broadcasting,
Canadian artists, Canadian recorders and so on.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 5 in Group No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The recorded division shall also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 50,
51 and 52.
(1250)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-32, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41 on page 14
with the following:
``(2) 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
(a) copies of the work issued to the public,
(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or
9005
(c) the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service, and a person who
does or authorizes the doing of any of those acts, without the consent of the person
who commissions the photograph or film, infringes that right.''
He said: Madam Speaker, I take issue with some of the
comments made by certain members of the Reform Party, which I
found to be in extremely bad faith, especially with respect to the
danger radio stations will face with the introduction of
neighbouring rights.
The aim of neighbouring rights is to afford performing artists
and production houses the protection enjoyed by the citizens of the
countries that signed the Rome Convention and to ensure that
performing artists and producers receive fair and equitable
royalties when they work, whether they are interpreting the works
of creators or authors or producing their own works.
This has long been awaited and requested by artists. They were
totally forgotten in Quebec and Canada when 50 countries signed
the Rome Convention, which provides artists with a salary. I do not
need to remind this House, and particularly my Reform colleagues,
that the average annual salary of artists is between $7,000 and
$13,000 per year.
Our objective was to ensure that the introduction of
neighbouring rights did not penalize certain stations with lower
revenues or facing difficult financial situations. We in the official
opposition would have preferred the government leave the matter
with the Copyright Board. The government preferred to set a floor
or a ceiling in order to exempt a number of radio stations.
Our Reform colleagues make no mention of this important
element of the bill, which provides that radio stations with $1.25
million or less in advertising revenues will pay only $100 a year in
neighbouring rights. When I hear our Reform colleagues talking
about the risk of stations closing and of jobs being lost, I think that
is bad faith.
Neighbouring rights, I remind you, are those paid to performers
and producers. They have been ignored for decades, although they
are recognized by over 50 countries. We must at least understand
that there is a whole category of artists called performers, who
work and are not getting paid. They get no return on their work,
because it is played on the radio or elsewhere.
These people are entitled to a fair income for their work, like
everyone in society who works and is paid a fair wage. I have a
hard time understanding the Reform Party's objection to people
living or trying to live off their work as artists. The Reformers are
defending the radio stations at all cost, crying wolf, saying that
neighbouring rights will force stations everywhere to close,
causing a loss of jobs.
(1255)
This is crying wolf, because, after evaluation-and my own and
others' discussions with representatives of radio stations-this
significant $1,250,000 exemption means that the bulk of stations
will simply be charged $100 annually, which does not jeopardize
them in any way. Let us be clear on this: it does not jeopardize them
in any way, contrary to what the Reform Party claims.
I would like to focus particularly on the Bloc's amendment in
Group No. 3 of motions, reminding the government that it is
merely intended to ensure that photographers are recognized as the
author, on the same footing as other creative artists are by the bill.
I would like to point out this extremely important aspect,
because the photographers themselves have been trying to gain
recognition as artists for decades.
I invite the government to support my amendment on this. There
is even a museum of photography here in the national capital. We
know how the magazines use professional photographers for
exhibitions. We know how some photographers have earned
international acclaim as artists on the basis of their works. How can
it be that the government has not yet lent an ear to the
photographers, and included them in the bill and recognized them
as artists?
In order to ensure proper attention to this, the Bloc motion
provides that, when a person has a series of photographs taken of
the family, the children, etc, it is clearly stated that the person who
pays the photographer has ownership of the photos and therefore
owns the work, and not the photographer.
In all cases, however, where photographers take pictures with a
view to displaying them as works of art, it strikes me as completely
logical in 1997, after decades of efforts to gain recognition, that
photographic artists finally be recognized in the bill.
We moved this amendment because the bill lacked any clause
recognizing photographers as artists and creators, and I hope the
government will support our amendment and give recognition to
photographers.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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
9006
exhibited or shown in public, or the work broadcast or included in a
cable program service''.
(1300 )
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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise to speak to Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for
Richmond-Wolfe which reads:
That Bill C-32, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 4 on page 14
with the following:
It goes on to describe different items. I would like to explain
what I think is right about the several proposals of the member for
Richmond-Wolfe. Also another serious flaw which the member
for Kootenay East did not raise but may or may not agree with me
on is a pretty obvious one.
This amendment would replace a part of Bill C-32 which, for the
most part, seems well crafted. It mentions an exchange or a
contractual agreement between two parties, which is a property
right. It talks about the necessity of the arrangement and how one
person can obviously enter into a contract on a photograph. It
includes photographs as a piece of property and is a good
amendment.
It has the support of most people. Professional photographers or
someone who commissions a photograph should have some
proprietary rights to it. It should not be used willy-nilly without
their say. If there is not some kind of control professional
photographers, except for the initial photograph, would have no
protection from leeches who could steal their work, publish it in
papers, copy it and make their pound of flesh from the artistic
ability of the photographers in question.
(1305 )
The problem with the amendment is that it is written in the
negative. They would have the right not to have. That is a poor way
to describe a right someone has. The amendment is crafted
backward. It should be crafted in the affirmative. It should talk
about what the person has the right to do, not about what the person
does not have the right to do. It is a poor way to describe that right
of photographers.
To get into the body of the proposed amendment, where
copyright subsists in the resulting work I am not sure if that is the
same as what exists. I guess it means it can be or it could be
copyrightable. I am not sure if that is wise. Copyright rules are
designed so that one has to copyright something before one gets the
rights to it.
Be that as it may, as we get into the body of the amendment we
see that part A talks about copies of the work being issued to the
public. The intent there is proper. It would protect someone from
having a photograph in a gallery beside the Chateau or anywhere
else in Canada retaken, recopied, sold as a work of art and profiting
from it. I assume issued to the public would include things like
issued for sale and not just for presentation or whatever they are
doing to receive a benefit. There should be a contractual
agreement. Part A is relatively easy to agree with.
Part B is the work exhibited or shown in public. This is a
worthwhile amendment in that it protects people who may not want
their works broadly distributed. It protects those who may want a
limited audience for their photographs. It may have been very
private or personal. It may be one of a kind. All photographs are but
it may be something for their pleasure only.
Under that amendment they would think their work would not be
shown without their permission. I think of everything from very
personal photographs of babies or loved ones or some horrific
pictures of car accidents they do not want rebroadcast for public
gain, for propaganda purposes or for a dollar value. It is something
9007
they do not want rebroadcast. It should be their right to step in and
say they do not want that to happen.
Part C refers to the work broadcast being included in the cable
program service. One concern about the Copyright Act that I have
heard expressed by local cable companies is the infringement of
their rights. I am thinking of a local cable service in my riding that
does a good job of broadcasting public events. It is almost a public
service. It works almost exclusively with volunteers. It
rebroadcasts events of all kinds including parades, other public
events and showings and local fairs. It takes its cameras to 4-H
Club presentations. It is a real public service.
In towns such as mine with about 60,000 to 70,000 people the
cable service becomes a community service. It is not a money
maker per se. We count on the cable service broadcasting council
meetings, for example, and all the other items I mentioned.
(1310 )
When such a work is included in a cable program service
sometimes it is inadvertent. The broadcast of a 4-H demonstration
or whatever could include original works of art or original
photographs that are contest prizes. They could rebroadcast on the
cable system, as paragraph (c) mentions, which could almost
inadvertently infringe on somebody's rights.
In my riding these shows are often rebroadcast four or five times
during the week to ensure they hit all the target audience. The
concern expressed to me was about what would happen if the Santa
Claus parade were rebroadcast and something copyrightable was
infringed on.
There are no provisions. It is just thrown out that if the cable
program services do it they are in trouble. If they repeat it four or
five times they are really in trouble. They say that is unacceptable.
They say they need the freedom as a community service to
broadcast public events, public showings and so on. They feel that
if people do not want their photograph or their product rebroadcast
they cannot be expected to know that. They cannot stop the
cameras, go up to someone and ask if it is all right to move past a
painting or display. They cannot function in this way in a public
event such as a fair, a Santa Claus parade or whatever. It is not
possible.
They are concerned the Copyright Act does not give them the
freedom they need to do their job as a community service. I have to
agree with them.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment by the Bloc is a bit
complicated. It amends a current amendment to the bill which
amends subsection 13(2) of the act.
I have read the amendment several times. I have consulted with
other people. I do not know if it is anything but what can be
described as nebulous. The amendment is amending an
amendment which is nebulous, to begin with.
I will try to explain what I mean. We are talking about
engravings, photographs, portraits, plates and originals. The
wording of the unamended amendment indicates that in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary the person by whom the
plate or original was ordered shall be the first owner of the
copyright.
The question comes down to the ``by whom''. Is it the artist or
the person ordering from the artist? Legal counsel would only be
able to say that is unclear. It could be interpreted either way.
As a consequence we cannot build a concrete foundation on a
sand foundation. It will not work. It is not that I wanted to compare
the Bloc amendment to concrete necessarily, but I had a duty to
point that out.
(1315 )
I assume that the intent of the Bloc's amendment is to empower
the artist. However, we may already be empowering the artist with
the original amendment. If it is an attempt to overturn that
amendment, that is one thing. If it is an attempt to strengthen it,
that is another thing. I am not at all clear in which direction we are
going.
In any case, there is a flaw. It is an important flaw. We want to
attempt to achieve clarity in our legislation. We have all been in
circumstances in which we have seen draft legislation come
forward, and the constructive readings of that draft legislation can
come from the most unpredictable sources.
In one of the committees on which I sit a government bill was
introduced that turned out to be so badly drafted when it got to
committee that it was withdrawn and has yet to come back to
committee. That was several months ago.
There are lots of precedents. We all know this can happen. It is
important for us to look once again at this clause.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
9008
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 4.
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-32, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing
a) line 29 on page 27 with the following:
``27.1 (1) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), it is an''
b) line 1 on page 28 with the following:
``(2) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), where the''
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 96 the
following:
``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), paragraph 45(1)(e) of the Copyright Act,
as enacted by section 28 of this Act, shall be read as follows for the period beginning
on June 30, 1996 and ending on the day that is sixty days after the day on which this
Act is assented to:
(e) to import copies, made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the
country where they were made, of any used books.''
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) 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.''
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to be on the record on these motions.
There are in this grouping three motions, Motions Nos. 6, 44 and
60.
Motion No. 60 is a government motion. Motions Nos. 6 and 60
are both technical amendments. Motion No. 6, is a consequential
amendment. It makes a correction to a subsection added to the bill
by the committee.
(1320)
Motion No. 44 by the member for Kootenay East in the name of
the member for Edmonton-Strathcona is about used books. It
claims that used books could not be imported and things of that
nature. I would like to correct that perception.
The bill does not prohibit the importation of used textbooks.
Rather, it provides a safeguard should the importation of certain
used textbooks become a problem. The amendment made by the
standing committee ensures that Canada can continue to maintain
control over its own marketplace. It is a very solid safeguard and
the concerns of members should be looked after with regard to that
amendment.
Motion No. 60 in the name of the government is a consequential
amendment, one that all parties will probably accept as well as the
other one. It ensures that an amendment made by the committee
will not be retroactive to June 30, 1996. I know many members
have spoken against retroactivity in the past including members of
the Reform Party, Bloc Quebecois and the independent members
present. I suggest to them again that it would be wise to support this
amendment.
With regard to Motion No. 44, the government will be indicating
its decision but personally it is a no vote. We are not in favour of
Motion No. 44 because the bill itself guarantees protection and
there is a safeguard in there to make sure that our marketplace is
not distorted when it comes to used books.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32,
specifically to Group No. 4 amendments.
At the outset I wish I could share the confidence of the hon.
parliamentary secretary that the clause I am going to speak on is
not going to be a problem for students. I do not see that when I read
the bill. I take exception to his confidence that it is not going to be a
problem.
Motion No. 44 effectively deletes the second part of clause 45(e)
which deals with import copies made with the consent of the owner
and the copyright in the country where they were made of any used
books. Then it goes on to say except textbooks of a scientific,
technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational
institution in a course of instruction. That is the clause which is the
problem.
Clause 45 in the bill addresses the issue of exclusive distributors
in Canada. If a copyright owner has selected a Canadian publisher
to distribute his or her work in Canada, that publisher is an
exclusive distributor. Clause 45(e) provides an exception to this
and makes it lawful for individuals to import used books. That
would be fine if this government had left it at that. Instead, the
government has created an exception to the exception. It has
specifically made it unlawful for individuals to import textbooks of
a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an
educational institution such as colleges and universities.
What does this mean? The Liberal government has given into the
pressures of the Canadian publishing industry at the expense of
those who can at least afford it, the students. It is interesting to note
that this amendment was pushed through at the last minute in
9009
response to pressure from Canadian publishers. It is also
interesting note that when the Canadian Booksellers Association
appeared before the parliamentary committee considering Bill
C-32 in October 1996 absolutely no mention was made of used
textbooks. Instead, this amendment was added at a late date
without any meaningful opportunity for interested parties such as
booksellers and student associations to have input. That was
shameful.
(1325)
Time and again this government has said that it is committed to
young Canadians. This government has tried to make us believe
that it is investing in the futures of young Canadians. For many
young Canadians the future starts with university or college. Books
are one essential part of higher education. As a parent whose
daughter is currently in university I am only too familiar with the
costs involved, tuition, books, living expenses. They all add up
quickly. In a northern riding such as mine, Prince George-Peace
River, the expenses can be much more if a student is forced to
relocate in order to pursue a higher education.
Luckily my daughter has parental support, but many students do
not. One way they can defray the high costs associated with
university or college is to buy used textbooks. Because there are
few Canadian suppliers of used textbooks, bookstores and students
rely on a supply of used textbooks imported from the U.S.A.
The average price of a brand new text book is about $75, and
even that seems low. I am well aware that many students face costs
of hundreds of dollars for textbooks. It is estimated that the cost to
students of purchasing new rather than used textbooks will be $5
million annually if this amendment is passed. This will only
worsen the student debt problems that we are currently facing. On
an individual level the effect of this amendment will be to increase
the total amount a student spends on textbooks over the course of
his or her degree by as much as $1,600. This is a huge blow to
students and their parents.
Sixteen hundred dollars would pay for a whole semester of
college or university. Sixteen hundred dollars could help students
from more remote areas who have been forced to relocate to travel
home for Christmas or for summer jobs. Not only do students buy
used textbooks to save money, they sell them back to campus
bookstores in order to recoup some of their money.
These textbooks are exported to distributors outside Canada.
Canada currently exports more used textbooks than it imports so
there is a balance of trade there. By restricting the importation of
used textbooks this government is affecting this export trade. We
can expect that if the import of used books stops, so will the export.
Demand for used texts will fall and students will no longer be able
to sell their books back to campus bookstores. This will result in an
estimated loss to students of $2 million in revenue each and every
year from the sale of used textbooks.
Canadian universities and colleges are increasingly relying on
revenues from the sales of used books. Campus bookstores benefit
twice from the sale of used textbooks. They get a commission on
the purchase of used textbooks by the students and they get a
margin on the later sale of reused textbooks to other students.
It has been estimated that lost revenues for Canadian academic
institutions and their bookstores as a result of this Liberal
amendment would be almost $600,000 each year. As we all know,
decreased revenues are always passed on to the consumer in the
form of reduced service and higher costs. In this case I reiterate that
the consumers we are talking about are students.
Who will this amendment really help? The Canadian publishing
industry seems to think it will protect them. However, despite what
we have been led to believe Canada is not being overrun by foreign
used textbooks. In 1995-96, 29 per cent of the used textbooks that
were exported from and reimported into Canada were Canadian
material. Canada is in effect recycling its own used textbooks.
The effect of this amendment will be to force students to buy
brand new textbooks, most of which are published by American
companies. Therefore the protection of Canadian interests
argument does not hold water. I submit that the true effect of this
amendment is to protect the profits of foreign owned new textbook
publishers.
Another effect of this legislation will be to encourage Canadian
students to photocopy their friend's textbooks rather than spend
money on new ones. Students who resent being forced to purchase
new textbooks or who simply cannot afford them will no doubt pick
the cheaper option and head to the photocopier. Who could blame
them?
(1330)
Surely this is a step backward for copyright protection. Not only
does this raise concerns from the student perspective, it also raises
concerns under NAFTA. The amendment would interfere with
trade based solely on geography rather than content or intellectual
property rights, thereby offending the national treatment provisions
of NAFTA.
Clearly this amendment, which restricts the import of used
textbooks into Canada, does little for anyone other than foreign
new textbook publishers. All it does is unfairly penalize Canadian
students, colleges and universities while at the same time failing to
have any positive effects on the Canadian economy.
9010
That is why I strongly urge this House to adopt the amendment
proposed by my hon. colleague to delete this senseless restriction
on used textbook importation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is good to speak to this amendment today. It is an important one. I
do not know if it slipped in without being noticed by the
government but for some reason the government has seen fit to
leave it in here.
It is concerned about one of those rising free trade issues of all
times, the case where used textbooks could slip across the border in
incredible numbers, flooding the market with cheap textbooks. It
happens all the time that thousands of businesses go broke. Every
day I get phone calls about this.
The reason it is a concern is that this specifically mentions
university textbooks of a scientific, technological or scholarly
nature. This provision is in there in case used textbooks become a
problem. Again, I can hardly imagine that happening. Even if it
were to become a so-called problem, what a delightful problem it
would be.
I was in university for a while. The reasons I left will be left not
discussed today. I was in university for some time. What does a
person do when they get into university? The first thing they do is
get courses assigned and textbooks.
People get their textbooks. They rush down because there is
always a certain number of used textbooks available. They are
available for first come, first serve. They are half price. If a person
charges in there, they can get a scientific novel, a dissertation that
is already highlighted and ready to go at half price.
When talking about a $1,600 bill for textbooks, what a plum to
know there are plenty of textbooks, hopefully a plethora of
textbooks, a cacophony, lots of textbooks all available at half price.
The member from Peace River asked what the number one
priority is of a student. There is no doubt what the number one
priority is. It is scholarly activity.
Jana is one of the many pages who serve us in the House of
Commons. They do a wonderful job. I asked this young lady what
her priorities are, what is catching her attention these days. They
are getting near the end of term. They are here on a scholarly
enterprise. They are here to learn and they also learn in university.
She said: ``I live to work at my scholarly activities''. I said:
``You look a little tired this morning. Is it possible that you have
been working too hard?'' She said yes, she had been working too
hard. She had been up to three o'clock in the morning studying
some obscure topic that probably most of us would not even
understand.
(1335 )
I am sure that with the use of a textbook and friends of both
sexes they worked together to get to the studies at hand, using
every asset at her disposal and pouring herself into her work. I was
impressed. I am sure that at about one or two o'clock this morning
she was thinking to herself ``where are those used textbooks?'' It
was weighing heavily on her heart. I am sure she was thinking ``if
they cut off the supply of used textbooks, what shall I do, I will
have no opportunity to further my education''. She could be
relegated to spending evenings in fruitless activities or who knows
what.
I think of Jana when I think of this clause. I think what a sad
thing it would be if this clause were to pass unamended. It would
make it impossible for her to use any of these used books.
I jest somewhat of course. However, the intent of my remarks is
sound. People going to university have a limited income, limited
access to books. Almost all of them are striving to make ends meet
and it is a tough job. These pages here are just like everyone else.
They are trying to make ends meet as well.
Why would we want to restrict the access of used books to these
people and others, that it could suddenly become a problem? I do
not think people who are attending university need to be concerned
about limited access. I say if used books can be found by the bus
load, bring them in and sell them at half price, let the students
benefit. After all, many scholarly books are only scholarly for that
short university period. Let us recycle them, use them up and give
the students a break.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to continue in the vein of my colleague on used books.
The government is proposing a penalty on used books. Used text
books which are largely used by college students or universities
could not be imported.
An hon. member: That is false.
Mr. Gilmour: A member across is saying it is false. We do not
share that opinion. We feel this clause should be deleted. It is
redundant.
Who does this penalize? It penalizes the students. I also address
my comments to the nine pages in the House. These students spend
time in the House learning about our parliamentary system and at
the same time they attend university. These pages should not have
to pay double for textbooks.
However, there is a deeper picture here. Why is the government
penalizing students? Why is it not letting business take place?
Business should operate on its own and should not be subsidized by
government. If it cannot do that, it will go under.
On the one hand the government is saying it is going to charge
students $5 million more for books. On the other hand there is an
$87 million gift to Bombardier. What kind of picture does this paint
of the Liberal idea of business? It is absolutely wrong.
9011
This will be pushed forward. The Liberals will have loaded up
the Senate. There will be no restriction in the Senate because the
Liberals will push it through, another dysfunctional system.
(1340 )
I would like to go back to my university days. When I was in
university books were a major cost. The fact that I was able to sell
those books the next year either back to the university or to other
students was part of my accounting for going into the next year. If I
was not able to sell those books it would have been an additional
cost, a cost I could not afford.
I again go back to where the Liberals are coming from. Why
penalize students? Look at the pages here. Why should they be
forced to pay another $5 million because the government wants to
penalize them? It is absolutely wrong.
There is nothing wrong with recycled books. A book can be used
many times. Why should it only be used once? It is because these
people across the way are saying they will subsidize the publishing
industry. That is basically wrong. This motion is redundant, wrong
and should be deleted.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.
(1345)
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
9012
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.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I wish to intervene because what I am hearing is totally
wrong, and people should not be allowed to say such utter
nonsense.
First of all, this morning I took great pride in being in this House
to consider Bill C-32 which concerns phase II of the copyright
modernization process. For many years, the performing arts
community has been waiting for this bill, and the government had
to do something to update the existing legislation.
As I said this morning, in committee we worked long hours and
heard more than 65 groups of witnesses from across Canada,
people representing performers, radio, television and various
educational institutions and museums. We did a very thorough job
in committee because we felt that all the groups and associations
that appeared before the committee had important things to say and
some very specific recommendations to make.
We made a point of carefully listening to and considering what
was said, bearing in mind the objective of Bill C-32 on copyright,
which is to introduce new rights, including neighbouring rights, for
performers, to add other mechanisms and forms of legal recourse
for artists, and, as far as book distribution is concerned, to make
some major changes to prevent parallel imports.
We also did a major job in committee when we considered this
bill with all the amendments. The Bloc Quebecois alone proposed
75 amendments. The government also worked very hard on
proposing amendments after hearing all these groups. However, I
must say that while the committee worked very hard on this bill,
the Reform Party members were conspicuous by their absence.
They did not attend the discussions on the amendments, and were
absent throughout the process of determining what was useful and
what should be included in the bill. Today, they stand up and say
that this bill was hastily cobbled together and that there were some
last minute amendments.
I may recall that this bill goes beyond political considerations.
This bill concerns performers and the very important cultural
industry, and the official opposition will not tolerate members in
this House criticizing the work of a committee and its approach,
while they were conspicuous by their absence.
Today, people who worked with very specific objectives in mind
are being accused of proceeding with undue haste and proposing
amendments at the last minute. Speaking for the official
opposition, I say no, that is not what happened.
I wanted today to be a memorable day in this House when, at
last, the Copyright Act, which goes back to 1924, was revised the
first time in 1988 and is aimed at serving the interests of creators
and authors as well as the interests of those who use their works,
will now follow the legislative process and move on to third
reading.
I strongly urge the Reform Party to rise above its own partisan
considerations and this attempt at obstruction, and work on this
bill, instead of trying to make political mileage at the expense of
creators, young people, students and our pages, no less. Talk about
rhetoric!
(1355)
[English]
Mr. Abbott: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): My
understanding is that it was said in a general context and not
directly at a member in particular.
9013
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, I would
like to point out that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
held nearly 25 meetings, heard 68 witnesses, spent a total of85 hours on committee work, analyzed in excess of 190 briefs. It is
unacceptable for Reform Party members to accuse committee
members from the government and the official opposition alike of
having done a poor job, of having botched this bill, especially when
the hon. member saying so chose to absent himself from the
committee and to practice empty-chair politics.
He has just voiced concerns about the amendment relating to
photographers. I would remind him, since he had difficulty
understanding that amendment, that I took my inspiration from the
British copyright legislation. There has been much reference to
copyrights in other countries. He ought to try to understand the
amendment in the light of the British copyright legislation.
Today we must refuse any attempt to dispose of a major bill in its
second review phase, which must be revised in five years.
This bill refers to collective societies, which represents authors
and creators. We worked very hard on this major instrument, which
is aimed at making it possible for these societies to speak with
users and reach agreements with them. There is also a copyright
board to govern the mechanisms.
I invite the Reform Party to rise above partisan politics and to
give this bill a chance to survive, for the good of creators and users
both.
This will be a great day if we manage to rise above political
interests and to work strictly on behalf of authors and the cultural
industry.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will get back to this if
necessary after Oral Question Period.
It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
9013
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning we all awoke to the horrifying news that six youngsters in
Israel were murdered in an ambush today. Our hearts go out to the
families, friends and those who were injured. So too our hearts are
heavy with the knowledge that on this day one year ago 16 children
and their teacher were massacred in Dunblane, Scotland.
While these incidents and others such as the massacres in
Montreal and Tasmania are always heart wrenching, they are even
more so when children are the targeted victims. Innocent children
in Israel and in Scotland were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The world lost unrealized potential and some of its innocence.
We much each make a renewed commitment to ending violence
in the world and in our own backyards.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Montreal has just lost one of its leading citizens, with the
death at age 76 of Paul-Émile Robert, the ``figurehead of the
nationalist movement'', as he was referred to in yesterday's
Le
Devoir.
I had the honour to know Paul-Émile Robert when he was
president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal in the
early 1960s. I held the same position for Saint-Jérôme, so we had
occasion to meet regularly.
In 1965, this ardent nationalist spearheaded the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal's commitment in favour of
Quebec sovereignty.
(1400)
His militancy in defence of the French fact led him to create a
foundation for the defence of francophones outside Quebec, the
Fondation J.-Donat Langelier. He was also involved in the
Montreal municipal scene, where he was a municipal councillor for
close to 15 years.
I extend my most sincere personal condolences, as well as those
of the Bloc Quebecois, to those who mourn the passing ofMr. Robert.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians of all walks of life and persuasions agree on a
vision which includes protecting endangered species.
When the government first proposed endangered species
legislation last year it entered into consultations and a committee
process. The consultative process excluded rural Canada and
Canada east of Ontario.
The way the bill has been amended in the most recent version
has changed the thrust of the legislation so significantly that
original supporters are now in open revolt.
A grand coalition including business, workers and communities
in British Columbia is appealing for the bill to be scrapped and
replaced with responsible endangered species legislation. It feels
strongly that species protection must be designed both by scientists
and democratically accountable officials and not in the courts.
9014
We do not want to obtain the same results that were obtained
south of us where there has been massive social and economic
hardship and 25 years of ongoing litigation.
I ask the minister to scrap the bill.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank members of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources who participated in the preparation of the report on rural
development tabled yesterday in the House.
The report identifies a fairly well defined road down which we
can travel to restore economic health to rural communities. The
problem is that the prescription is three years too late.
Even the Liberals understand that their own policies during the
last three years have taken a lot out of rural communities. For us on
the prairies the loss of the $720 million annual contribution known
as the Crow benefit means that every rural elevator point on the
prairies loses about $1 million in local farm income every year.
Liberal government decisions like that one have made it difficult
for rural communities to maintain the jobs they currently have let
alone work to create new ones. It is important to acknowledge how
valuable rural Canada is to the overall well-being of our nation. We
must work toward rebuilding it, but let us not forget that the
Liberals created a lot of the obstacles we now have to jump over.
* * *
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the city of Cambridge, the Ontario government and
the many individuals and businesses that worked together to
complete the new $10 million Chaplin Family YMCA in
Cambridge.
Citizens and local businesses generously contributed a total of
$3.1 million toward the project. The Chaplin family of Cambridge
alone contributed more than $500,000.
This co-operative effort shows the people of Cambridge are in
touch with the concerns of the greater community and that notions
of civic responsibility and giving back to the community are what
make Cambridge a great place to live.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to congratulate John Craig, a student from
Haliburton Highlands High School.
At the age of 16, John has started his own business. John's
business is a fitness facility in the village of Haliburton, Ontario.
Along with the business, John gets great grades, plays on the
football and cross-country teams, participates in drama and works
weekends at an electronics store.
The idea for the business came when the old fitness facility in
Haliburton closed. John leased the facility, brought in weights from
his house and purchased additional ones. All this cost him $5,500
and if he gets an aerobics class it will cost him another $700.
His brother, Dan, has helped him considerably, along with his
friends. His rent is considerably less than that of the last tenant but
the most important factor will be his client base. John is working
on that by placing flyers around the community and placing ads in
the local paper.
I wish John all the best with his small business endeavour.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the House about the impact of the Harris
government's decisions on health care and hospital closures in
Ontario.
I feel obliged to dispel certain falsehoods about the issue,
namely about the reduction in transfer payments to the Ontario
government from 1993-94 to 1998-99, which amount to only11.4 per cent. This represents at most 2.5 per cent of Ontario's
revenues.
[Translation]
In the light of these statistics, the Harris government cannot say
logically that the cuts in transfer payments are behind the cuts to
health care and the closures of hospitals like the Montfort. The real
reasons for these cuts and hospital closures is no doubt the decision
of the Harris government to cut taxes, including personal income
tax.
* * *
(1405)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has long called for action against motorcycle gangs. The
people of Quebec are now calling for help as the innocent victims
of government inaction.
Only a few days after their father was hit by a stray bullet at a
Quebec City restaurant, the Lagrange family has gathered more
than 1,000 signatures from people calling for government action.
People are not prepared to let stray bullets threaten their own,
their family's or their neighbours' life. They will not permit the law
of the jungle to prevail in their neighbourhood. It is high time this
9015
government used the resources at its disposal for the welfare of our
community rather than waste them in an effort to come up with
some harebrained scheme or other to create the utopian dream of
national unity.
The Minister of Justice must listen to the cries for help from the
people of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
mentioned before in the House the lack of research funding for a
disease which affects a large proportion of the population of
Canada, particularly women. That disease is fibromyalgia.
On April 12 of this year the first International Fibromyalgia
Conference for western Canada will begin at the Sheraton
Landmark Hotel in Vancouver. This conference will bring together
fibromyalgia suffers and experts from around the world to share
information about the disease and how to cope with its effects.
I urge members on the health committee of the House to make
themselves familiar with the disease of fibromyalgia and the
impact that it has on the lives of its sufferers and their families, and
to ensure that representatives of the fibromyalgia sufferers are
invited to be witnesses in any future considerations of funding or
bills which may have an impact upon them.
For further information about fibromyalgia or the upcoming
conference members can call 604-540-0488.
* * *
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the pleasure of attending a ceremony in my riding to
congratulate 14 graduates of a youth internship program in tool and
die making.
This youth internship program is funded by Human Resources
Development Canada. The program is a result of a partnership of
Humber College, 14 corporations, and George Webber and
Associates. It provides entry level training to young people
between the ages of 15 and 24. The training is given in high growth
sectors and occupations in demand and involves on the job and in
class training in combination with job specific and basic
employability skills.
At a time when youth unemployment is unacceptably high I take
this opportunity to congratulate all those who have helped create
this very important bridge into the workforce for our young people.
Often young people starting off in their careers get caught in the
trap of not being able to find a job because they do not have the
experience and of not being able to develop the experience because
they cannot find a job.
I would like to offer a special recognition to Humber College
for-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 1, three provinces in Atlantic Canada will
implement a harmonized sales tax which will simplify tax
collection, provide a greater input tax credit for business and
thereby stimulate the Atlantic economy.
The blended rate of 15 per cent will effectively reduce the tax
rate by nearly four percentage points in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick and nearly five percentage points in Newfoundland.
The harmonized sales tax will finally put an end to consumers
paying tax on tax. Books will be exempt from the provincial
portion of the tax, as they have always been, and books for public
schools, colleges and university libraries will be tax free.
A harmonized sales tax will not only benefit Atlantic Canada; it
will benefit the entire country. I sincerely hope that as other
Canadian provinces realize the value of a single national sales tax
system they too will sign on very quickly and then we will have a
tax-
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been nominated for the
Nobel Peace Prize in the effort to achieve the worldwide ban on the
use and production of anti-personnel land mines.
The United Nations estimates that there are approximately 100
million active land mines in 65 countries and another 100 million
in storage. The tragic fact is that there are an estimated 26,000
casualties each year resulting from the use of land mines.
(1410)
Minister Axworthy's leadership is truly a remarkable effort
toward achieving peace.
The Speaker: The member should refrain from mentioning any
of our names.
Mrs. Hickey: He has also asked every country in the world to
show their commitment to this goal by coming to Canada in
December of this year to sign a treaty that will ban the use, transfer,
production and stockpiling of anti-personnel land mines.
9016
I fully applaud the minister's efforts. I am very proud of the
fact that such a remarkable initiative has been spearheaded by one
of our colleagues-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval Centre.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, ten years after its first forum on women, the Centrale de
l'enseignement du Québec is organizing its second gathering, this
week, under the theme: ``Power, a non-traditional job''.
Aware of women's limited access to the various forms of power,
the participants will cover four themes: women's ability to act in
their personal lives, their perception of autonomy, political power
and the economy.
Despite the vitality of the women's movement, women have yet
to be recognized as a social force that cannot be ignored. Thérèse
Casgrain deeply believed that women's power had to be gained
alongside and not in opposition to men's. So, men will be invited to
attend on the final day and take part in special workshops.
Women's power to be, act and imagine is a major asset to the
development of our society. Women must take their rightful place.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is a most
significant anniversary for it was on this date in 1989 that the hon.
member for Beaver River was first elected to the House.
She has led the way in proclaiming that MPs are elected to
represent their constituents, taking their voting orders from them
and not from the party hierarchy in Ottawa. She has led the way in
showing that there can be politicians who serve the people and not
themselves by denouncing and opting out of a self-enriching,
lavish MP pension plan. She has led the way in showing that
women can compete with men for nominations and can win on
merit and ability instead of bearing the insult of unelected
appointment.
She suffered the loneliness of being the sole Reformer here for
nearly five years, supported briefly by Canada's only elected
senator, Reformer Stan Waters.
We salute the member for Beaver River today. She truly is a
leader among leaders, a friend among friends and a mentor who
leads by example. May she continue to inspire us all. We wish her
continued success and happiness.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bromont has just been named the site of the eastern Canada sports
cyclist national training centre.
The primary purpose of this training centre is to promote the
development of optimal conditions for the training and
development of top level athletes in road, track, cross country and
mountain bike racing.
The corporation that managed this centre is already considering
the possibility of building a velodrome, to further add to the
facilities available in this region for development of this sport. It
also plans to offer young people a program of sports combined with
study that will help develop our next generation of athletes.
This is very good news for the Bromont region and for cycling in
general. The government is pleased to be involved in this
undertaking through Sport Canada.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Prime
Minister's recent announcement that he will, where he deems it
necessary, appoint women as Liberal candidates during the next
election has raised a great deal of interest.
Overall, this initiative has been well received. It should help to
reduce the unjustifiable discrepancy between the number of men
and the number of women running for and elected to office in
Canada's general election.
The few truly negative comments we have heard come solely
from opponents who are frustrated by the political audacity and
courage of our leader.
(1415)
Although 54 women were elected to Parliament in the 1993
election, today they still occupy only 18 per cent of the seats in the
House of Commons. Our leader feels it is time to do something
about this under-representation and we heartily congratulate him
on his determination.
_____________________________________________
9016
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Somalia inquiry has been eventful from the word go.
We saw generals suspected of a cover-up, we heard witnesses
contradict themselves, we saw a minister make a hash of things and
9017
in the end lose his job. We even saw an operation to look for lost
documents; the whole army on alert to look for documents hidden
by the chief of staff.
Nevertheless, a number of things are clear. First of all, there was
at least one murder in Somalia. Not unfortunate accidents but a
murder. Second, senior army officers and senior officials with the
Department of National Defence tried to hide these facts. And
finally, now that the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia is winding
up, we still do not know exactly how many people were involved in
the cover-up.
Considering that the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia will not
be able to offer full clarification of this case and all the
consequences within the time frame it was given, why does the
minister persist in refusing to extend the commission's mandate so
that it can do a good job?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today it will be
nearly two years since the commission of inquiry started
investigating the events that took place in Somalia.
The government gave the commission three extensions,
including the last one. However, we have asked the commissioners
to submit their report no later than the end of June. We could have
continued this inquiry for another year or two or three, and by the
end of this whole exercise, the conclusions and recommendations
would probably have had some historic value.
As the hon. member is aware-I was going to say ``Leader of the
Opposition'', but this may be a bit premature-I am to report to the
Prime Minister of Canada and the government on the future of the
armed forces and how we should proceed. The former chief justice
of the Supreme Court, Brian Dickson, has agreed to investigate and
report on the whole military justice system as well as on the way
investigations should be conducted.
I am sure it would probably have been impossible to obtain full
clarification of all the events that occurred before, during and after
the situation in Somalia.
I think that for the sake of the Canadian Forces and for the sake
of the future of this institution which is very important for Canada,
we had to wind things up. As soon as a report has been submitted to
the government and the Commission of Inquiry has made its
recommendations at the end of June, I hope Canadians will realize
why it is important to turn the page.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if we are celebrating the commission's second birthday, I
am not sure the word celebrate is particularly apt, it is because their
people are responsible for the situation. We would not be in this
mess if people had not run around hiding documents. That is what
happened at army headquarters. At that level, we have an
establishment that protects its own and prevents the truth from
coming to light.
To restore credibility within the armed forces, would it not be
preferable to finish the inquiry and, if necessary, produce a
preliminary report in June, let the minister do some house cleaning
and then continue this inquiry into a number of major events, to
identify who was responsible for what?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully
understand the hon. member's concerns. The incidents that
occurred in Somalia are absolutely intolerable. The way the
institution reacted to these incidents is entirely unacceptable. That
is why we promised to try to find ways to prevent such incidents
from recurring, but in a less than perfect world, we know it is
always a possibility. We had to find a way to set up mechanisms for
dealing appropriately with all eventualities.
(1420)
I never commented on the way the commission decided to do its
job of hearing witnesses, on its work schedule or on the testimony
as such.
But I can say to the hon. member that I believe Canadians realize
that for the past two or three days, we have heard witnesses who
were directly involved in the incidents that occurred in Somalia.
They are being heard two years later. I am just stating a fact. This is
not a comment.
If two years later, we now hearing testimony from two people
who were involved in the incident in Somalia, I think it says quite a
bit about the time it would have taken to receive conclusions and
recommendations that would be useful, in the current context, to
try to deal with the problems and the challenges facing the
Canadian Forces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister would agree that had there not been a
cover-up, we would not have the problems we have today. If senior
officers had co-operated instead of trying to sabotage the inquiry,
we would not be where we are today. If the minister's predecessor
had not spent his time protecting senior officers instead getting the
army to do what it is supposed to do, we would not be in the mess
we are today. There are guilty parties. If certain acts, certain
criminal acts were committed, surely there are people who are
guilty.
Considering that this commission will not be able to finish its
work, does the minister realize that soldiers will have trouble
identifying who among their superiors was innocent and who was
guilty? And that is a serious matter.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is referring to a situation in which there may be certain
9018
things that prevented the commission from doing its job or that
meant the commission needed more time to do its job than would
have been the case had the circumstances been different.
However, some allegations regarding purported cover-ups and
all the rest have been checked by other institutions. I may remind
the hon. member that for instance, in the case of allegations
concerning the former chief of staff, a government institution
conducted an investigation and found that General Boyle was not
responsible for doing things which, according to the commissioner,
were unacceptable.
The important thing for us is that by the end of March, when we
will have reported to the Prime Minister and Canadian people,
people will be able to evaluate the work we have been doing for
three months. At the end of June, Canadians must be able to
analyze-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue has the
floor.
* * *
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Three weeks ago, a number of Canadian police officers and
soldiers stationed in Haiti stated that their lives were endangered
by the lack of co-operation by local authorities. Today the situation
has not improved. On the contrary, Canadian patrols are the victims
of repeated attacks by Haitians throwing stones.
Does the minister agree that these statements are troubling, and
can he tell us whether his department has initiated an inquiry to cast
some light on the situation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not in the
process of investigating who is throwing stones in Haiti. But I can
tell you, as I stated yesterday to those concerned about these
statements by two members of the Canadian Forces, which were
picked up by the press, that when our people are sent into a
situation like the one in Haiti at the moment, it is obvious that they
are not being sent to the local Club Med.
They have gone to a dangerous spot, one where there is danger
not only for our troops, but also for the President of Haiti. We are
not there in a babysitting role. This is a military situation in which
military personnel will certainly be exposed to a certain degree of
danger.
(1425)
Make no mistake: when Canadians go to a country like Haiti that
has been torn apart by internal strife for years, it is not a
comfortable situation. There is, of course, some level of danger, but
I believe that the military personnel who are there, as well as the
police officers, and the Canadian public in general, consider that
the objective of the mission is a valuable one, in light of the
realities they face daily.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister explain to us why the two soldiers who dared reveal the
truth concerning the increasingly dangerous situation in Haiti, for
both police officers and the military, have been moved to
administrative positions?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the two soldiers
expressed concerns about their safety.
If the two persons in question were uncomfortable with the
mission they had been asked to carry out, it was important not only
that they say this to the general public, but also that they discuss it
with their colleagues who are also there to fulfil the objective of
this very important mission.
They have not been disciplined. They were nervous where they
were, close to the President of Haiti, and so they have been put in a
position where, I hope, they will feel more at ease.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is collecting more taxes than any other federal
government in the history of Canada. It has the record.
Not surprisingly, Canadians have suffered a $3,000 pay cut in the
last three years. What do they get in return? They get 1.5 million
Canadians unemployed, 800,000 people having to moonlight just
to make ends meet and the highest number of young Canadians
dropping out of the workforce since the 1960s.
My question is for the finance minister. When is the government
going to realize that high unemployment is a direct result of high
taxes? When will it get the connection?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all the hon. member's numbers are wrong. He ought to
know that since we have taken office the federal government's
share, revenues as a percentage of GDP, has dropped.
He ought to know while disposable income dropped
substantially under the Reform Party's kissing cousins, the
Conservatives, in 1993 when we took office it stabilized.
Third, he ought to know that as a result of the government's
actions, massive purchasing power through the reduction of
interest rates has gone back into the pockets of Canadians.
9019
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
trying to defend an unacceptably high unemployment rate, the
Liberals are sounding exactly like Brian Mulroney: productivity
up, interest rates down, low inflation, rosy IMF predictions
and-listen to this-the best job creation record in the G-7.
These are exactly the same arguments that Brian Mulroney made
in this place in 1992 to try to defend another government that
promised and failed to deliver on jobs, jobs, jobs for 1.5 million
Canadians. It is exactly the same rhetoric.
Instead of using Brian Mulroney's arguments from 1992, why
does the government not actually do something for the 1.5 million
unemployed? Why does it not lower taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we reduced taxes in the last budget by $2 billion over the next three
years.
The government has set out a very clear and comprehensive plan
for job creation. It is, first, to clean up the nation's finances which
has led to an unprecedented drop in interest rates.
Second, we have a short term plan for the infrastructure
program, which the hon. member had the nerve yesterday to call
rinky-dink. He cast aspersions on every mayor and municipality in
the country. We have the Prime Minister's trips abroad.
We also have a long-term plan, a reinvestment in education, a
reinvestment in research and development. If the Reform Party is
sincere about jobs, then it will support the government's budget. It
is the most comprehensive plan that has been set out.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
certainly not going to support a rinky-dink government with its
rinky-dink budget.
(1430 )
A single income family of four making $30,000 will pay 90 per
cent less in taxes under a Reform government. That is 1.2 million
low income Canadians who will be lifted completely off the tax
rolls under a Reform government. Those are Reform values.
Is it Liberal values for the government to tax the working poor so
they can give money to their buddies at Bombardier which just
announced a $400 million profit? Is it Liberal values to try to
explain away one and a half million unemployed just like Brian
Mulroney did?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform Party members want to talk values. They want to cut $3.5
billion from health care. We will not do it.
Reform Party members want to talk values. They want to cut $3
billion from equalization. They want to deprive seven provinces of
decent public services. We will not do it.
Reform Party members want to cut $5 billion from old age
pensions. We will not do it. We will match our values against theirs
any day of the week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In February, the CBC revealed that, contrary to what the
Minister of National Defence has been promising students signing
up for subsidized university programs, the Canadian Armed Forces
are requiring participants to meet their contract commitments or be
forced to repay huge sums even after changing or ending their
program of study.
How does the minister explain that students registered in good
faith, like those whose course of study was cut out from under them
with the closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, are forced to
meet their contract obligations and even to pay back the salary they
received, when he is not fulfilling his part of the bargain?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone
who signs a contract must try to fulfil it and I think most people
expect this sort of contract to be met.
However, in certain cases, a person may have been forced to
change career or been unable, for some reason, to continue his or
her studies.
In some instances, there may be a way to resolve the problem,
but, in general, because the costs involved are very high- whether
in Saint-Jean or at the Royal Military College in Kingston
-Canadian taxpayers expect everyone to fulfil their commitments
as in the case described by the hon. member.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I am
quite prepared to talk about costs, as a career change for a young
person often involves considerable cost.
Since we know that those recruiting students lead them to
believe that the course of study they choose will continue, would
the minister not agree that this practice is outrageous and that his
department should act quickly to settle the case of the dozens of
students who were lied to by his department?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
9020
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, the hon. member used the word
``lied'', but he did not say that the minister had lied. Nonetheless,
I would prefer that such words not be used.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously it is
disappointing for everyone when courses are changed along the
way.
I have explained to my hon. colleague that, under the
circumstances, where it can be shown that the changes had an
effect, the government should look closely at the situation. Each
case must be decided on its own merits. I am prepared to review the
cases the hon. member would care to put before me and the
department.
But I would explain to him that a person who has agreed to take
courses in a civilian institution must honour the debts he has
incurred or the commitments he has made if he decides to leave the
institution because he is dissatisfied or because the courses have
changed.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 1, 1993, while he was still in opposition, the
Prime Minister was quoted as saying: ``Canadians have reached the
saturation level with respect to taxation''. Yet the reality is that
since his Liberals have come to power the average Canadian family
has suffered a $3,000 pay cut because of the government's tax
hikes.
Did the Prime Minister really mean what he said when he was in
opposition or was he just pulling a cruel April fool's joke on the
Canadian people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member can stand in this House and spout nonsense all he
wants, but it is still going to be nonsense, no matter how much he
repeats it.
There has been an increase in the government's revenues. That
increase has occurred overwhelmingly as a result of economic
activity, which is exactly what anybody should want.
At the same time there has been a tremendous reduction in the
cost that consumers have to pay for refrigerators, for houses and for
cars. It is estimated by most economists that over $5 billion in
additional purchasing power has gone back into the hands of
Canadians as a result of the actions of the government. The hon.
member ought to recognize that.
There is not much use of me standing in the House and
responding to nonsense. What I would really ask is that the Reform
Party's researchers go back and come up with the odd question that
reflects the economic realities.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is anyone in the House spouting nonsense, it is the
hon. minister.
We constantly hear about how good low interest rates are. What
good are low interest rates to the unemployed? When was the last
time the minister heard of a bank manager approving a loan or a
mortgage for someone who does not have a job?
There are 1.5 million people out of work in Canada.
Unemployment has remained high ever since the Liberal
government came to power. Even though in other countries
unemployment rates have been decreasing over the last two years,
it has become a distinctly Canadian problem.
When will the government members get it through their heads
that high taxes cost Canadians jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is not a distinctly Canadian problem. There is no doubt that the
government is not happy with the level of unemployment. It is for
that reason we brought in programs to help youth unemployment,
programs to help our exports and programs to help small and
medium size businesses.
In terms of the world, and the Prime Minister has said it, outside
of the United States, if we look at the G-7, we have stronger job
creation than any of those countries. We have done very well.
That does not mean we are happy. That does not mean we will
rest as long as there is one Canadian unemployed. This government
will work on it.
Where was the Reform Party three years ago, two years ago and
one year ago? Every day in the House its members stood and said
cut, gouge, slash, burn, ignore health care, ignore unemployment.
We on this side said that we would not do that. We will protect the
Canadian worker. We will protect the Canadian social fabric. The
Reform Party ought to recognize that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Middle East peace process is in crisis. After announcing
plans to build a new Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem, an
occupied territory since 1967, the Israeli government has just
decided that it would return only 9 per cent of the West Bank
territories, rather than the 30 per cent expected by Palestinian
authorities.
With senseless violence breaking out once again, can the Deputy
Prime Minister tell us Canada's position following Israel's an-
9021
nouncement that it would withdraw from only 9 per cent of the
West Bank territories, and would continue building settlements.
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to be very
committed to the peace process in the Middle East and we
encourage all parties to the process to remain committed
themselves.
We experienced today a very unfortunate incident in the Middle
East and we send our condolences through Mr. Netanyahu of Israel
to the families of the victims. With him we wish that the rhetoric in
the Middle East were diminished to avoid these kinds of
unacceptable incidents.
Just to say that Canada does remain committed to the peace
process, we are not in a position to demand that Israel take certain
actions but we feel that through dialogue and negotiation peace can
prevail in that region.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
secretary of state did not exactly answer my question.
I asked her what Canada's position was following Israel's
announcement that it would withdraw. We can all say what we
would like to see and offer condolences, but this does not sort out
the immediate problem.
Because I was unable to get an answer on Canada's specific
position regarding Israel's withdrawal, I would like to ask the
secretary of state if she can assure us that the government will do
everything in its power to bring an end to the cycle of violence and
to help salvage the peace process, before it is too late.
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada does remain
committed to supporting the peace process in the Middle East.
When the parties to the conflict have negotiated solutions we
would hope in the name of peace that they stick to their own
commitments.
We with the international community are concerned when there
are deviations to the negotiated settlements and we would hope that
they will remain at the table to overcome their differences and
assure the world community that peace will come to the region.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
today's Ottawa
Sun Gary Rosenfeldt, who is with us today, whose
son Daryn was one of Olson's victims, said: ``We don't feel
[Reformers] are exploiting us at all. They are the ones standing up
for us, speaking out for us. If there is anyone who is exploiting this
situation it is the justice minister. He is the one who should be
ashamed. We are confident that all Canadians will remember that
Clifford Olson's platform was built and maintained by the Liberal
Party of Canada''.
Being as the Liberals voted not to apologize, just what does the
Prime Minister have to say to these victims today?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
The Minister of Justice has met with many people who have lost
loved ones and friends. It is out of respect to these loved ones and
friends and out of respect to the victims that certain changes have
been made to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
First, the code was changed to allow for victim impact
statements in these hearings. Second, there was a change to
prohibit serial or multiple murderers from making use of this
application. It was also changed to put in a screening process so
that frivolous applications would not be allowed. Third, it was
changed to ensure that the jury verdict had to be unanimous in
order for an applicant to receive a reduction in parole ineligibility.
Finally, the minister has sent letters to his provincial
counterparts requiring that all prosecutors tell people who have lost
loved ones exactly what the circumstances of section 745 are at the
time of sentencing.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
we refer to a rinky-dink finance minister we should refer to a
Tinkerbell justice minister. Tinkering around with this stuff is not
the answer.
Two days ago on ``Canada AM'' Jana Rosenfeldt, the sister of
one of Olson's victims, said: ``Actually we met with the justice
minister last year. He had a chance to stop this. He basically spit on
the graves of all these kids. He had a chance to stop it, he left it to
the last day in Parliament and of course it didn't go through. I
blame him''.
(1445)
Ms. Rosenfeldt is referring to Bill C-45. Why did this
government not move immediately to ensure that Jana Rosenfeldt
and the families of other victims did not have to relive their
nightmares by listening to Clifford Olson?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I view as absolutely appalling about the situation is that the
hon. members of the Reform Party indicate to these people who
have lost loved ones tragically as a result of crimes that if section
9022
745 could somehow be removed from the Criminal Code in the
future they would not have to undergo the trauma of these hearings.
I have news for Reformers. Why do they not tell the victims of
crime the truth? If this section were removed from the Criminal
Code today all people who are in the system already could still
apply up to 25 years in the future. That is the abuse of the victims.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday
March 4, at 4.30 p.m., a company in the process of setting up
operations in my riding learned from the mouth of the president of
the local Liberal Party of Canada association herself that it would
be receiving over $50,000 in grants, and learned this less than an
hour after the minister had signed his agreement. The following
day, the offices of the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the President of Treasury Board released to the press certain
confidential information on the business plan of that company.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development, or the
President of Treasury Board, explain in this House how it happens
that, on the eve of an election, the Liberal riding president,Mrs. Mathieu, is the one to announce grants to the riding of
Portneuf, on behalf of the government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not familiar with the facts referred to. I would ask my hon.
colleague to provide them to me.
However, I believe that, if there any accusations to be made
about MPs who have revealed infrastructure program projects
before all parties have approved them, these would be directed to
the party across the way.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to set
things straight, first of all, the fund involved was the transition job
creation fund. Second, the money does not come from the Liberal
Party, but from the people. What I am referring to is not a favour
from the Liberal Party, but application of a non-partisan
government program. You will have understood, what we are
talking about here is political morality.
I am asking my question of the minister, who has just opened the
door to me. Yes, I will provide the information, and does he
commit, in this House, to investigating his own department and
that of his colleague in Human Resources Development, to find out
how information provided confidentially to a departmental
employee ended up in the newspapers?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will look into the facts once I have them, in order to see if there are
any grounds whatsoever for what the opposition member is
claiming.
I wish to repeat here that, no matter what the program, if one
wants to find examples of the people's money being given out for
partisan purposes, these will be found in the party of the
opposition.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
The community of Grand Rapids is located north of the 53rd
parallel and is a four hour drive north of Winnipeg. In 1990 the
Mulroney government decided that Grand Rapids was a southern
community and that taxpayers there did not qualify for the northern
tax benefit. The full impact of this Tory decision has been felt for
over a year now.
Will the minister listen to the people of Grand Rapids and
consider changes to the northern tax zones?
(1450 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Churchill for his question. He has
been a very fervent advocate for northern residents on this issue. I
have certainly appreciated his efforts and I will continue to listen to
him and indeed to the residents.
I should, however, like to provide some history on the topic. The
current northern resident reduction was implemented in 1991
following the report of a task force that was set up. It concluded
that the original community based approach was unfair and
unworkable. It proposed that only residents of broad northern
intermediate zones receive tax benefits. These zones were defined
using objective criteria relating to both environmental factors and
community characteristics.
While I appreciate that members of the community may well be
disappointed, they were set up on the basis of an objective system
which was regarded to be substantially superior to the old system
which was much more subjective.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
previous allegations and recent testimony before the Somalia
inquiry leave many serious unanswered questions about decisions
made and actions taken at senior levels in the defence department.
9023
Neither the committee of four nor the military justice review
can resolve responsibility or culpability of the individuals
concerned. With the inquiry terminated, serious issues will be left
hanging.
How does the minister intend to overcome the loss of trust that
comes with the perception that senior leadership has escaped
investigation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated
in the past to the hon. gentleman who brings a great deal of
knowledge to the way the Canadian forces work that obviously I
would not be able to comment on the way the commission of
inquiry conducted its agenda or relate to the specific testimony of
any witnesses.
However, I want to thank the hon. member and his party. I have
been looking for input because he asked how we could deal with
some of the problems and challenges facing the Canadian forces.
Finally, I have a document that I gather is from the Reform Party
called ``The Right Balance'' by Andrew Davies who I understand is
a candidate for the Reform Party. In his article he asks what is
wrong with the Canadian forces. I encourage Canadians to read this
article because it is input from the Reform Party on what it thinks is
wrong with the Canadian forces and what it thinks some of the
solutions would be. It is very illuminating and I would be happy to
table this document.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not hear an answer to my question. I was not talking about the
Somalia inquiry. I was asking what the minister intends to do to
restore trust in the Canadian forces by completing this
investigation. Without full disclosure, these issues will never be
resolved. This is far from being in the best interest of the defence
department or the Canadian forces.
How do we fix something if we do not know what is broken? The
inquiry was following terms of reference laid down by this
government. Having disrupted that process, does the minister now
intend to let the matter just drop and hope it will go away?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I
think it will be a very long time before the very deep wounds that
were inflicted on the Canadian forces and its reputation go away.
However, I do think we have to begin the healing process and put
in place the corrective measures that are required to ensure that this
kind of situation does not occur again.
With respect to that, we have asked a retired chief justice of the
Supreme Court, Brian Dickson, to bring to the government and to
the people of Canada specific recommendations, and they are wide
ranging, with respect to the reform of the military justice system
and the military police and their role.
In addition, we will be submitting to the government and to the
Canadian people a wide ranging set of recommendations with
respect to how we can deal with problems and challenges facing the
Canadian forces. We will do that before the end of March, as I
undertook to do on December 31. Then the Canadian people will be
able to see what people who are serious about the future of the
Canadian forces have done and proposed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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?
(1455)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
raised a very important issue which concerns market access. In
fact, the French government's current policy on dubbing is costing
Canada jobs because it will not accept films dubbed by a country
other than France, claiming that the accent is wrong, in fact rather
rustic.
We are working together with Ms. Beaudoin, the Quebec
Minister of Culture, to ensure that following representations made
by Ms. Beaudoin and the Union des artistes, we can have a joint
policy to counter a catastrophic dubbing policy like the one
supported by France today.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was at
9024
Telefilm Canada in Montreal, where I met executives of Telefilm to
discuss various issues, including the problem facing the Canadian
dubbing industry.
Before taking any action, we want to be able to co-operate
closely with the Quebec Minister of Culture, Ms. Beaudoin, who
has already indicated that she wants to adopt a joint policy on the
subject. I believe the French minister, Mr. Douste-Blazy, will be in
Quebec City on April 6 and 7. We hope that the persuasiveMs. Beaudoin will be able to infuse some logic into the French
cultural policy on dubbing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence.
On March 16, 1993, while in custody, Somali teenager Shidane
Arone was beaten to death by Canadian soldiers. How is it possible
that the Somalia inquiry will end before it investigates the event
that led to the investigation into the inquiry in the first place?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
many times, I do not wish to comment and I do not think it is
appropriate for me to comment on how the commission that began
its works two years set itself up to pursue the objectives within its
mandate.
There have been other initiatives and other procedures taken to
deal with the beating death of the Somali citizen the hon.
gentleman refers to. I am sure anyone who is really interested in
that incident is thoroughly familiar with the facts surrounding it
and how it was dealt with through the military justice system.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we are talking about and that is
exactly why we have a Somalia inquiry in the first place.
I have one question for the minister of defence. If a Canadian
had been beaten to death on March 16 instead of a Somali, would
the minister of defence be shutting down the inquiry?
The Speaker: That is a rhetorical question.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it has to do with
the regime in Burma.
Perhaps the minister is aware that there was a group
demonstrating its concern earlier this day on Parliament Hill. The
regime in Burma is truly one of the most despicable regimes on the
face of the planet right now. The government has shown leadership
in other areas, Nigeria very recently.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the government is
contemplating, would consider or would act soon to sanction the
Government of Burma and to encourage other nations to do the
same vis-à-vis trade sanctions and other pressures that could be
brought to bear on the Burmese government to finally bring
democracy to that besieged area of the world.
(1500 )
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the
Government of Canada is very concerned with the situation of
human rights and governance in Burma. In whatever form we can,
we do raise those issues.
Canada alone cannot act to bring effective sanctions against a
country like Burma but we do act with other nations, particularly
those in the region of Burma. We talk to them about our concerns
on this front. We hope to be able to encourage them successfully to
take some collective action with us to try to influence the
government in Burma to change its ways, to promote good
governance, democracy and respect for human rights.
The Speaker: Before I proceed to our final question, I said it
was a rhetorical question. My colleague, you will forgive me, it
was a hypothetical question.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has recommended
that the cod fishery on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and south of the
coast of Newfoundland could be reopened in a minor way this year.
Is the minister prepared to reopen these cod fisheries in a minor
way?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council did recommend that the cod fishery on the
south coast of Newfoundland and the northern and southern gulf
could be opened in a very minor and precautionary way.
When I announced the groundfish management plan in
December, I stated that providing there was reasonable consensus
among the fishermen in those areas and if they could come up with
a conservation plan and a reasonable harvesting plan, then I would
consider opening that fishery.
I have to report to the House that I have met with the fishermen's
association and many fishermen. They are working very hard to put
together, with my officials, a consensus and a plan that respects the
sustainability of the fisheries. If their progress continues, I expect
to be able to make a decision in the not too distant future on the
9025
basis of an amber light as opposed to a green light for the reopening
of these fisheries on a test basis.
I expect I will be able to make a decision in the not too distant
future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, here is my question of the week for the leader or deputy
leader of the government in the House: what is on the legislative
menu for the coming days?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the House will not be sitting tomorrow because
of the Bloc Quebecois convention. I would, on this occasion, like to
wish my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, good
luck and to congratulate him in advance.
[English]
The precise configuration of the business for next week depends
on the receipt of a message from the other place with regard to Bill
C-70, the harmonized sales tax legislation. If the message is
received before the end of the day, I propose that the House deal
with it first thing on Monday.
I can definitely inform the House that we will commence
consideration of Bill C-82 with respect to financial institutions on
Monday. This will be no later than 3 p.m. but it could be earlier if
events so transpire. The back-up to this bill on Monday will be Bill
C-81.
Our tentative plans are to call the budget debate on Tuesday and
Thursday and to do legislation on Wednesday and Friday. This
legislation will include the bills that I have already mentioned as
well as matters that have been on the agenda this week.
If the message from the Senate does not arrive in a timely
manner, I will have to revise these plans and will advise members
accordingly.
(1505)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Question? Does the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe have a question?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I do not have a question.
The Speaker: There is no question.
[English]
If there are no points of order, this is a happy day for me.
9025
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Copyright Act as reported (with amendment) from the
committee and Motions Nos. 6, 44 and 60.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak on the Group No. 4 motions. I mentioned
earlier today the problems caused for book distributors by this bill
and the problems it would cause for consumers of book products as
a result.
At this point I would like to cover some objections to the bill that
have been raised by the Canadian Association of Student
Associations. With some information that they sent earlier today,
they have calculated that the average spent on books by students
during a university degree is around $4,800, which is a significant
amount of money.
All of us who have been through university in the past know that
it is always a struggle to pull together enough money to buy the
textbooks for the year and $4,800 is not an insignificant amount of
money. This figure is based on 10 courses per year with an average
figure of about $75 per book. As those of us who have been to
university know, many courses require more than one book but this
calculation is based on one book per course.
The amount that students are able to save on the trade of used
books, according to an average worked out by the Canadian
Association of Student Associations, is about $1,600 or one-third
of the total they spend. That is enough to pay for an entire semester
of tuition and fees.
Students run into problems where professors choose to change
the edition of a text from one year to another, which happens fairly
often. I see some nods of assent from the other side from members
opposite. I know they have experienced the harrowing experience
of having professors change the edition of a text.
Students are unable to pass their texts to another student
following behind. Therefore, there has been quite an export trade in
books which enables the students to make between 40 and 50 per
cent of the original cover price as they trade those books back
across the border on export.
If the import trade is stopped, then obviously the export trade
will end. That will be a direct result of this bill, which maybe the
government side did not anticipate. Certainly those who are
directly affected can see it quite clearly and they have not hesitated
in pointing it out.
9026
That was not something that came from the member for North
Vancouver in isolation. It came directly from the Canadian
Association of Student Associations. There are many unintended
effects. As a result of this part of the bill we will end up with
poorer service and higher prices for a Canadian used textbook
system.
Ernst & Young did a study which concluded that book publishers
were much slower at fulfilling orders than the used textbook
distributors. Another unintended effect would be that the supply of
Canadian used textbooks will be reduced by perhaps 50 per cent.
Blocking reimports will prevent the very recycling of Canadian
used textbooks that the publishers say they support.
This really is a badly thought out bill. Unintended effects make it
obvious that its drafters should have consulted in a more
meaningful manner with those who would be affected, in this case,
university students.
The basic facts are that used textbooks are a small percentage of
the overall textbook sales at Canadian universities and colleges.
That is true. There is about $18 million or about 8 per cent based on
the Ernst & Young study for the Canadian Publishers Council.
Canada has a net balance of trade in used textbooks. The
Follett's Canadian operations, for example, actually buy and export
more textbooks from Canada than are later re-imported for resale
across Canada. The export trade is very important. If we start
playing around, blocking the incentives for re-importation, then we
are going to create a major problem for the export industry, which
is very large.
(1510)
In 1995-96, for example, 42 per cent more textbooks were
exported than re-imported. That is a major trade imbalance in
Canada's favour. In 1995-96, 29 per cent of Canadian used
textbooks which were exported and re-imported were actually
Canadian material. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, if this bill is
implemented, it will interfere with the re-importation of Canadian
material. That will actually interfere with the trade which the bill is
supposed to assist.
The conclusion reached is that Canada is not being overrun by
foreign used textbooks. In fact it is recycling its own used
textbooks through export and re-importation.
The figures of the Association of Students Association, which I
mentioned earlier, suggest that the average student is spending
about $4,800 on 10 courses per year. Universities and students will
lose to the tune of at least $5.4 million each year as a result of the
implementation of this bill.
Students will lose about $2 million in revenue from the sale of
their used textbooks, which are currently being recycled through
the U.S. If the sale of imported used textbooks turns into new book
sales, students will end up paying an extra $3 million for the same
textbooks they could have obtained through the recycling system.
These figures come directly from the Ernst & Young study.
These are not figures which are being pulled out of the air. They
come from legitimate studies done by very reliable sources.
Canadian universities and colleges, through their bookstores, are
estimated to lose at least $375,000 in gross profits and will face
higher inventory costs and greater risks.
These are very serious problems. As I pointed out earlier in the
day when I was talking about my constituent who is a book
wholesaler, representing a United States company, there will be
major impacts on the free market with this system. At the moment
the free market has adjusted itself to the point where there are
really good values in books available directly through importation
from the United States. When these additional layers of
protectionism are introduced, which will supposedly protect
Canadian culture, in fact it will interfere with the availability of
books and cause problems with pricing at the consumer level, as
indicated in the concerns raised by the students.
This is a very ill-informed set of clauses. Frankly, they need
attention. As has been indicated in a number of speeches made by
my colleagues, the bill should be withdrawn. The best solution
right now would be to withdraw the bill and take another look at it.
We should start again from scratch and investigate whether we
need to be using these sorts of tactics to try to protect Canadian
culture when in fact we will be interfering with the consumer
marketplace.
I am pleased I had the opportunity to bring the concerns of the
students' association to the attention of the House. I join with my
colleagues in opposing the bill.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to cover a few points which have been raised on used
textbooks. Hon. members are shortchanging the ability of
Canadians to take care of business.
I refer to my experience a few years back when I was at the
University of Ottawa. We had the problem of not being able to
access used books. We set up our own used bookstore. Nothing in
this bill prevents Canadians, be they students, be they
entrepreneurs, be they book publishers, from doing that. Nothing
prevents people from putting in place organizations and
mechanisms to recycle books.
To make the argument that somehow, some way, this bill would
banish the recycling of textbooks is erroneous. I believe it is
appropriate to highlight that point.
(1515)
Be they campus driven books, used book stores, Canadian
publishers and so forth, nothing in this legislation will prevent that
from happening. The intent of the legislation is to prohibit those
who would circumvent the legislation from doing that by selling
9027
into Canada books which have not initially been sold according to
exclusive distributorship agreements. That is what is intended and
nothing else.
I would hope that the members speaking to this point would
understand that and not create a false sense of alarm.
That is essentially what I wanted to point out on this particular
amendment.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to once again address Bill C-32 and in particular the issue
that has been discussed over the last several speeches.
I am concerned that not necessarily through malice but through
neglect the government is placing an inordinate burden on young
people today in many different respects. It is not limited to what we
are discussing today. There seems to be a theme developing here.
We have 17 per cent youth unemployment in the country today.
We have a situation where the government has just announced that
it is going to drive CPP premiums through the roof. It will be young
people who bear the great burden of that. They will be paying more
and more to get less and less. We have a situation where the
government reneged on its promise on the GST on reading
materials.
I am going to mention it one more time for people who have not
heard me raise this in the past. The government did promise before
the last election to get rid of the GST on reading materials. It
promised in policy conventions to do that. It has not happened, so
students have to pay the GST on textbooks that they purchase.
We have tuitions that have gone through the roof as a result of
cuts to transfers to the provinces. The government has cut $7
billion plus in transfers to the provinces. The result has been that
tuitions have been raised for young people.
I would point out that my party would reverse that trend by
putting $4 billion back in.
Now we have a situation where the government has snuck a
clause into Bill C-42. In fact, it is a clause that a lot of its own
members were not even aware of and there is a good reason for
that. A lot of the changes that happened occurred this morning, so
there was not adequate time for reflection on what was done.
Nevertheless, it is in there. Now we have to contend with it. It is
onerous. It is quite painful for students.
As the member for Vancouver North has pointed out, students,
young people, in addition to all the other burdens they have to face
because of what the government has done or has failed to do, are
now going to be in a situation where they cannot resell their
textbooks. They cannot get the money back that they would like to
get and will be paying $3 million in extra costs because they will
not be able to purchase used textbooks.
A $5 million hit for university and college students is
unacceptable. The government has already nailed them on the GST.
It has nailed them with tuition costs. It has nailed them with higher
premiums on CPP. They have a 17 per cent youth unemployment
rate. What does the government do? It turns around and gives it to
them again. It is giving them one more shot.
Let me say as forcefully as I can that the government should
rethink this provision of Bill C-32. It is completely wrong for
students today.
A lot of my colleagues have talked about pages in this place.
They work very hard both here and in university. Now they are
going to be facing this additional burden. I would say that young
people are our future. It is said by all political parties that we
should cut them some slack, that we should find ways to make it
easier for them, not hit them harder.
I want to urge hon. members across the way, including the
parliamentary secretary and all other people who have shown an
interest in this bill, that the government should truly rethink this
section of the bill. It has demonstrated in a way that really deserves
our attention that perhaps in particular case it has not thought out
the implications for all Canadians.
That is unfortunate. This bill has been coming to the House for
nine years. For nine years we have been dealing with this
legislation. One would think that they would not have to force
through pieces of legislation like this at the last moment with
obviously little or no forethought. As a result young people are
going to face very high prices.
(1520)
I will conclude simply by saying that there have been a number
of changes to the legislation which have penalized people who do
not deserve to be penalized. Young people, in particular, seem to be
picked on by the government.
As I pointed out previously, we do have an extremely high
unemployment rate for young people, 17 per cent as the national
average. It is much higher in other places. We have seen the big
CPP premium increases that will impact young Canadians and hurt
them the most. The government reneged on its promise of
removing the GST from reading materials, textbooks et cetera.
They already pay a much higher price than they would have if the
government had kept its promise.
We have seen the cuts in the transfers that the government has
enacted, driving up tuitions across the country. Now this amend-
9028
ment which is part of Bill C-32 is going to cost students $5.4
million more a year for books.
I would urge all fair minded members of the House to vote
against this amendment or, ultimately if it is not removed, to vote
against Bill C-32.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 44, the Reform amendment to
the bill deleting the section which would prevent textbooks of a
scientific, technical or scholarly nature from use within an
education institution in a course of instruction to be imported in the
used book category.
I did hear the intervention by the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I
do not think it clarified anything. It certainly did not clarify
anything to me. I find it to be a very cute clause that has the effect
of preventing reimportation of Canadian textbooks.
When there is a government that whispers the concerns of the
three rs, reduce, reuse, recycle, this certainly flies in the face of
that. I also listened to the intervention from the Bloc member, who
seemed quite concerned that we would not support the bill as it is.
The Bloc has also put forth amendments. This is part of the
democratic process, so I think it is quite in order for us to be talking
about these clauses.
I listened closely to what the member for Prince George-Peace
River had to say about used books. His intervention was very
timely. I do know something about textbook publishing. My family
has an educational background. My father has authored portions of
textbooks. My brother is an academic and writes for internationally
published journals. I know that the textbook industry is a very
special industry. It is a very profitable industry and we all know
that the setting of curriculum determines very often which
textbooks are going to be used.
(1525 )
There is a lot of attention paid by the publishers in trying to bring
curriculum setters on board and influence decisions as to which
textbooks become the preferred textbooks of the day and so on.
I do not think we need to add another layer of exemption or
special circumstance through this clause dealing with importation
exemptions to this piece of business. I left university 25 years ago
but during my time in that institution I certainly did use used
textbooks. There was a thriving trade in used textbooks. Students,
of all people, are very aware of the value from the day they
purchase their books to the day they take them back and try to get
reimbursement. They try very hard to keep the value up. A used
book in good condition is obviously worth more than a used book
in poor condition.
I had many advantages when I went to university from the
standpoint that I was able to work my way through. I left
university without indebtedness. That is very difficult to do these
days. It is much more difficult for a student to obtain employment
that will pay enough for them to pay all of their expenses for the
year as well as for their education.
Therefore I recognize that any advantage we can bring to the
student body is important, particularly on this financial end. If we
restrict the supply of used textbooks in any way, what that will do is
drive up the price of the remaining used textbooks. That will hurt
the pocketbooks of our students.
I do not see anything redeeming about this clause. Our
amendment would delete that exemption and I believe that is the
way to go. The clause, as it currently reads, is counterproductive.
The textbook publishing industry is already profitable.
The environmental concerns, reducing, reusing, recycling, are
met by any encouragement we can have to keep those textbooks
reusable and in free flow position.
Those are the points I wanted to make on that clause. I will be
quite happy to speak to some further clauses when we arrive there.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1530)
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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. 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.
9029
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: We will now move to Group No. 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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''
(1535)
He said: 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.
9030
(1540 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.
(1545)
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
9031
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.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Group No. 5 of the
amendments. There are three amendments here, Motions Nos. 7, 54
and 57.
Bill C-32 introduces a number of exceptions to facilitate access
and reduce costs for the benefit of public institutions and persons
suffering from perceptual disabilities.
(1550 )
To ensure access for certain types of users of copyright
materials, the Copyright Act recognizes certain exceptions for
reasons of public interest. The exceptions contained in Bill C-32
respond to the real concerns from certain types of users and, in
some cases, the bill stipulates that certain exceptions do not apply
where there exists a collective which can negotiate a blanket
licence for the use of those works.
The Bloc Quebecois has tabled amendments which would extend
this principle to all exceptions. This, in the government's view,
would nullify the very exceptions the government has been
promising to reintroduce over the past nine years. The government
believes that the collective management of rights is a cost effective
and efficient means of enhancing access to works.
The government will therefore continue to encourage the
collective management of rights but in certain circumstances, such
as those that are described in the bill, the government believes that
exceptions are required.
With this group of amendments, I think we have to be very
straightforward with regard to the tactics that are being used in this
House today to debate certain groups. I am going to give an
example. Here we have Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of these motions and want them
passed. The Reform critic for Canadian heritage has stood up and
said they are not ready to support that. The parliamentary secretary
for Canadian heritage is standing in his place now saying that we
are not ready to support it either.
There are some very serious debates that have to be done on Bill
C-32, debates that members want to hear, the ephemeral transfer
format. Unfortunately they only occur in Group No. 7. It is a very
long list of amendments. I am anxious to hear what members have
to say about those amendments because I think they go a long way
in satisfying the Reform Party and our critics with regard to when
the bill was first tabled in the House. That was the biggest concern
we heard from the Reform Party with regard to ephemeral transfer
format.
We heard other concerns from the Bloc with regard to the
creator's side, so we tried to strike a balance. At this point I see no
need for Reform members to reiterate over and over again that they
are against these three and for government members to reiterate
over and over that they are against them. I think we should let Bloc
Quebecois members explain again why they are in agreement and
convince us that they want to go with this. I would certainly be
ready to put the question now.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad
some members are not paying attention. When you recognize
somebody on debate why are they asking for the question?
The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that we are debating
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57. He has also insisted that
anybody who does stand up and debate should not go off on a
tangent and should not elaborate on anything else. They should
stick to the issue.
Now all of a sudden they are applying the narrowest sense of the
terms and rules of this House which, up until now, certainly a lot of
members and the Speakers who have monitored the debate have
given a lot of discretionary variance to for members to bring up any
particular issue on these amendments that we are debating.
What concerns me is that we have a process and a system in the
House of Commons whereby we have three stages to a bill and after
second reading it goes to committee. It can go to committee after
first reading for debate and discussion. Going through the fine print
is the responsibility of standing committees. It is their
responsibility to try to improve and point out flaws in bills and to
make sure that the interpretation of all members and all parties is
the same so that when the bill becomes law Canadian citizens can
understand it.
(1555)
When people look at an issue, when they want to know what the
law is, what they can or cannot do, they can pick up a bill, for
example Bill C-32, go to this page, which is being amended with
these three motions, read it and understand it.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe I should be. I will bet a dollar to a
doughnut that if we took this bill and some of these amendments
with the language being used to lawyers out there who are going to
be hired to interpret the copyright act, to interpret who has to pay
and who does not have to pay, to interpret collective agencies, who
qualifies and who does not, what they can charge for and what they
cannot charge for, there will be a difference of opinion out there.
They will not understand the wording.
9032
It is amazing to me that we try to introduce bills that are very
complicated. Instead of using fewer words, being clear and
concise, they carry a lot of baggage.
I have given this preamble for a purpose. I had a fight about
seven or eight years ago with the people of SOCAN. There was
another one. It was called PROCAN. We had two collectives
coming after my butt for running a nightclub in Calgary, playing
music and having live entertainment. These people professed that
they had the right to charge me money because I was playing
music.
I said that makes sense. I guess it is performing arts and I have to
pay it. I looked into it. The reason I bring up this story up is for a
better understanding of why I would be voting against the Bloc
member's amendments on this bill. The more collective agencies
there are, the more people who claim they have the power to
protect the rights of the originators of copyright information or
copyright material, the more confusion there is.
When I had my nightclub, they came to me and said ``here are
the fees''. They had a list of the artists and entertainers. Because I
was playing this type of music, because my establishment had a
certain number of seats and a certain amount of square footage, the
fee was x.
I wondered what right they had to do that. I questioned their right
to do that and what law forced me to do that. After all, if I had a live
performer in my club, I paid them perhaps $5,000 a night. I paid
good salaries because we only brought in the best entertainers.
Mr. Ian Tyson was a favourite of mine. We had him in our club
quite often. I paid this fee to the artist. Then I questioned why, on
top of that, I had to pay a performing arts fee to SOCAN and
PROCAN.
When I buy an album or a tape, we are all paying the fee for the
artist. The artist makes money from live performances, records,
tapes and videos that are put together. Members may argue that
they might not get enough of a percentage from it but they have
agents who negotiate that.
Certainly someone like Garth Brooks makes a heck of a lot more
now than he did when he first started. Yes, it was an opportunity for
me at one time in my club to book him for $5,000 a week. Now he
is getting $150,000 an hour or more, who knows what he is paid
now.
These collective agencies then come forward and say ``because
you are playing this kind of music, on top of what these people
make, we have to collect more money from you because you are
repeating it''. Radio stations play their music. They have to pay.
Then along comes another association called PROCAN, another
collective agency. The Bloc is recommending we create more. It
says to me ``you have to pay because you are playing this kind of
music, these people originated from the States, it is a bit of a
crossover''.
I said ``I am not paying. I am already obligated. Some other
association said I had to pay it. Before I pay anybody, I want to see
the lists of the artists you represent''. I made both of them bring me
the list. I had a file so thick of all the different artists and all the
different venues they represented. When I cross referenced it with
the other list, lo and behold some names of artists were on the two
separate lists. I asked how they could be charging me double.
Either one had them or the other had them. I raised quite a fuss and
I refused to pay both of them until they got it clear who represented
which artists.
(1600)
That lasted for a year and a half. I was able to get my back up and
directly fight the system. Through that I may have been one of the
people in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Vancouver who forced
these people to get their act together and create just the one.
My point to the Bloc member is that the fewer collective
agencies there are the better, and the clearer it is who you have to
pay for the rights to use somebody's music or work. I agree with
the principle that a fee should be paid for that since after all artists
are at the low end of the totem pole and they get the least. I
understand that principle and I would certainly support making
sure they get some money.
Let us not go overboard. In the process of trying to protect these
artists, performers and professional entertainers there are all these
fat middle people called agents, producers and everybody else who
take the cream off the top. The tougher you make it for the person
who tries to hire these people to perform on a stage in theatre, the
more expensive they are.
One of the reasons the philharmonics across the country are in
trouble-they raise some money but it is hard to raise money and
hard to pay them-is because the performers are asking too much.
You can bankrupt the system. If we go overboard with this
copyright bill by having too many collective agencies, which will
confuse the general public that uses the copyright material, we will
be in trouble.
The point in my intervention on these motions is to argue why it
is not wise to have a number of collective agencies. They become
like tax collectors. Lord knows we have enough tax collectors in
this country and we pay enough taxes already. The point is that yes,
we are interested in protecting the creators of original material and
yes, we are interested in protecting intellectual property. Those
people should be rewarded for their efforts, especially if they have
talent and if they create a reusable product.
I do not know all aspects of this bill. I was not on the standing
committee when it was debated clause by clause, but I hope that
somewhere along the line the members of the committee and the
parliamentary secretary recognize that there are a lot of people
involved here and everybody has his or her hand out. I hope we are
able to tackle the layer of fat of the different people who want a
bunch of money before the people who should get it get their fair
9033
share. By going too far in protecting artists are we satisfied and
clear in our mind? Do members of all parties have an
understanding before this bill gets passed that we are not just
padding the pockets of the producers, the agents and all these other
people rather than the artists?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
we go through these groupings today it is interesting to try to work
back and forth between the groupings from the Order Paper that
were dumped on us this morning, the bill we have in front of us and
the comments.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, it is unfortunate that
this part of the debate does not lend itself to questions and answers.
Maybe a guy could support some of this stuff more willingly if he
could ask a couple of questions about it at this stage. It is a very
lengthy amendment and it is difficult to try to figure out.
(1605 )
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to ask for
questions and answers to be part of this debate so that we could ask
the hon. member from the Bloc whether that was-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I turn the floor over to Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We were quite
co-operative this morning on the last request by the Reform Party
for unanimous consent. But as soon as they got unanimous consent
then they started playing tricks with the rules. They wanted to
adjourn the debate. I do not know how sincere they really are about
this. I would have to say no under the circumstances.
The Deputy Speaker: That would appear to resolve the issue.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things the parliamentary
secretary mentioned in his remarks on this motion I thought were
proper. He mentioned the idea of public interest exceptions and to
have certainty whenever possible in these clauses and take most of
the arbitrariness out of it. In government bills generally it is a very
wise move.
For example, in this amendment it states:
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;
Is that the proper way to do it? Is the collective society that is
making the application the one determining whether the terms and
conditions have been met? That is not normally done. It
collectively can make its application but it is not the one that
determine whether everything has been met. It would be an outside
body or an outside arbitrator. I am not sure exactly what is meant
by that because it seems to me it is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a
sense. I am not sure that is a wise way to term it. However, again
we cannot debate that. I just raise it as a concern.
I also want to point out that although the parliamentary secretary
is interested in certainty in the bill, there is a trend in a lot of
government bills to move away from certainty and toward
decisions made outside parliamentary consent, this clause
notwithstanding.
In bills that state ``that regulations may be referred to a standing
committee for examination''-not will, but may. Parliament may
examine this at a certain interval, not that it will or it shall.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary. These should be
exceptions and not the rule. Increasingly in the legislation before us
we find that power is taken away from Parliament and given to the
front benches. When we talk about changes, whether it is
regulatory changes on gun control, or at the discretion of the
minister under the new wheat board bill, that directors of the wheat
board shall not be liable to prosecution for Criminal Code
violations at the discretion of the crown. That is too much power to
leave with the government. It should be left with Parliament or at
the very least with a committee, some public forum where at least
questions could be asked.
However, in this group of amendments, 7, 54 and 57, because of
the inability to cross-examine, I would have to agree with the
member for Kootenay East. It is impossible to agree with these
given that I am not convinced the intent is obvious. As the
parliamentary secretary has mentioned, it introduces the
uncertainty that a bill should not have and that we should move
away from that whenever possible.
Lo and behold, I am going to agree with the Liberal government
on this point. We will be opposing this amendment. I will oppose
the bill too. I am sorry I cannot cross-examine the Bloc member.
Perhaps he has answers to some of my questions.
9034
(1610)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 36
with the following:
``(c) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under
subsection (1) or (5) and the manner and form in which the information is to be
kept; and''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 23 on page 37
with the following:
``(5) Where an archive requires the consent of the copyright owner to copy an
unpublished work deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this
section but is unable to locate the owner, the archive may copy the work in
accordance with subsection (3).
(6) The archive must make a record of any copy made under subsection (5), and
keep it available for public inspection, as prescribed.
(7) It is not an infringement of copyright for an archive to make a copy, in
accordance with subsection (3), of any''
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) 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.''
(1615)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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
9035
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.
(1620 )
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
9036
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.
(1625 )
The Deputy Speaker: Just before I recognize the hon. member
on his point of order, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to
inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time
of adjournment is: the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadowlake-Railways.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order regarding a motion moved this morning by
the Minister of Labour. I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 318(2), which is based on a ruling of July 14, 1977. It
states:
A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion-
If you will review the video and the audio tapes you will note,
Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour clearly called out point of
order and the Speaker clearly recognized him on a point of order.
While on that point of order the minister moved a time allocation
motion on Bill C-66.
For a more recent ruling on this matter, I refer to a Speaker's
ruling of November 20, 1996 at page 6503 of Hansard. The
Speaker then ruled that there is only one kind of motion which can
be moved on a point of order. He said:
In fact, there is only one motion that can be made on a point of order and that is
the motion that was made by the member for St. Albert.
The motion that the member for St. Albert moved was:
That the member for Medicine Hat be now heard.
That being the only motion that can be moved on a point of
order, the minister's motion for time allocation cannot be accepted
because he violated the rules of the House. These rules must be
followed to the letter because they are the only protection that the
minority in the House has against the tyranny of the majority.
The minister was clearly out of order in moving his motion to cut
off debate on Bill C-66 and I ask that you rule on this point of order,
Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. colleague was kind enough to
give me notice of this point of order. I have been attempting to get
the blues with respect to the points he just made.
I am told by persons who were here this morning that the
member is absolutely right that the words point of order were used
by the Minister of Labour when he stood and moved closure. The
member's point is one I raised earlier as a member.
I am also led to believe, unless somebody can correct me, that
the matter has been voted upon. Any member is obliged to raise
that point at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the precise
point about using the words point of order was not raised at the
time, the matter has now been disposed of by a vote in the House.
It is not as we say in Latin void ab initio, which means that it
goes back like in a bigamist marriage and the matter becomes
defective because you were married at the time of the second
marriage. The matter was cleansed, if I can used that word, by the
fact that nobody objected at the time the vote was held and the
matter proceeded.
I should hear from any other member wishing to speak on that
point.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not
within the minute but within minutes the member for Lethbridge
came in and addressed the Chair. He tried to correct that at the
earliest possible moment. It was not in the crush of the yeas, the
nays, the deferred vote and so on. It was, however, done at the
earliest possible minute.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it takes a minute or two to get
Beauchesne's out and crack open the section. Maybe some do but I
certainly do not have it memorized. It takes at least a minute or two
in order to get that book open and find the reference. It was brought
to the attention of the Chair but it was not really dealt with or
addressed as much as you have addressed it here.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would reconsider in light of the
fact that after it was raised the Speaker ruled on the acceptability of
when the motion was moved. Perhaps the point was not clear at the
time because our complaint was not when the motion was moved
but how the motion was moved. In other words, it was during
Government Orders but it was on a point of order, not to rise in his
place. There is a significant difference.
9037
The timing was fine. I do not have a problem with the timing.
The problem was how the minister rose to his feet and how he
brought that motion forward. He brought it forward in a clearly
inappropriate manner.
(1630 )
The Chair initially ruled on the when, not the how. It is the how
that was the problem. The inappropriateness was really what the
member for Lethbridge was trying to get out of the Chair at the
time. We did bring that up at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I was in the Chamber at the time
of the motion this morning. The Speaker was seized with it this
morning. She consulted with the clerk and she made a ruling. There
was another point of order this afternoon. You have since made a
ruling. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I would say to you that the
matter is closed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The reason for the
delay on the part of the Reform Party is that we also had to review
the tape.
The Deputy Speaker: I listened to the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East. Although I was not here, I believe the question that
was raised concerned at which time the motion was being moved,
whether it was under Government Orders or under motions. That
matter was ruled on by the Speaker.
The question of the fact that the minister had apparently used the
words point of order was not dealt with at that time, and
accordingly it is too late now to raise those words as words that
somehow obviated what had gone on at the time.
Therefore I have to move on. I realize the House is not sitting
tomorrow so I do not think I should reserve on that matter.
_____________________________________________
9037
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, act to amend the
Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to support the amending of clause 18 of Bill C-32
by replacing lines 15 to 22 on page 37. Our replacement reads that:
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.
Many members on this committee have toiled with improving
this massive document which deals with amendments to the
Copyright Act. They must all know that deficiencies and
imbalances still exist within this document, not the least of which
is the section dealing with archives. As it stands now the bill is
unrealistic and unreflective of the input and representation to the
contrary that came before the committee.
I have received numerous representations on this element of the
bill. One of my constituents who is a genealogist/archivist made a
written submission to the committee on this restrictive section,Ms. Judy Norberg of Campbell River, British Columbia. Her
representation characterized the issues of accessibility and freedom
of information in Bill C-32 as truly regressive and a definite step
backward for the work of genealogists. Without the right to
photocopy unpublished documents the hands of thousands of
students, historians and genealogists will be effectively tied.
The amendment before us unties this restrictive section and is
reflective of conscious and realistic thought on behalf of that sector
of the population that requires access to unpublished information.
(1635)
As it stands now, those individuals who help all Canadians to
better understand their history, their origins, their background,
those people chronicling our history are at a severe disadvantage if
the bill sits the way it is right now.
It is not possible for everyone to take advantage, for example, of
in person viewing at an archival facility. We are all at a deficient
position if this amendment before us is not supported by the House.
During committee some amendments were adopted that will
benefit archivists and genealogists. Archivists are now allowed to
make a copy of an unpublished work for research or private study
under specified conditions.
These conditions differ according to date of deposit and the date
of the author's death. For example, copies would be made of
archival material deposited when the bill is proclaimed in force and
whose author had died over 50 years previous to proclamation date.
These dates, however, are overly onerous. There are some things
that could be fixed there.
Reform feels further refinement and amendment is sought by
archivists and genealogists to better reflect their need for better
access and authorization to use certain documents which would
really be of no consequence to the rest of the world.
It is not like this would somehow infringe on other people. It is a
productive, constructive arrangement. In our view, it is not an
infringement of copyright for either an archivist or a person acting
under the authority of an archive to make copies for research or
9038
private study of a work that is contained in an unpublished forum.
However, the bill without this amendment would prevent this.
There is currently a fair use provision for published works.
Access to non-published works is essential for archivists and
genealogists in their research of family historical records for
example.
The bill originally created tremendous restrictions for archivists,
historians and genealogists. Amendments have improved the
original bill but the conditions of the current bill still leave these
researchers concerned because they would not have unfettered
access to archival material such as is provided in jurisdictions
outside Canada.
While some of the improvements have been made to the bill, it is
essential to not hamstring archivists for making a copy of an
unpublished work that was deposited into the archive before the
coming into force of clause 6, unless the author of the work advises
the archive it is not to be copied.
The amendment we are putting forth also states 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 archivist may not make a
copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.
Genealogists are concerned that genealogists and family history
researchers have uninhibited access to study, extract and copy
archival material whether published or unpublished as part of their
research efforts.
They have a concern that this bill places severe limits on rights
of reproduction which would have the effect of depriving major
sections of the population of this country access to the information
required to learn about their Canadian backgrounds and thus inhibit
the chronicling of our nation's history.
(1640 )
I feel that this amendment ensures that archivists and
genealogists are allowed to practice their profession or hobby. It is
not threatening intellectual property. It also ensures that all
Canadians will benefit from a better understanding of our roots,
heritage and history. I would urge all my colleagues to move
forthwith and support this amendment.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 12.
All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion No. 12 agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We will now proceed to consideration of the motions in Group
No. 7.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 12 to 19 on page 40 with the following:
``copyright for a programming undertaking to fix or reproduce in accordance with
this section a performer's performance or work, other than a cinematographic work,
that is performed live or a sound recording that is performed at the same time as the
performer's performance or work, if the undertaking''
(b) replacing lines 25 to 32 on page 40 with the following:
``itself, for its own broadcasts;
(c) does not synchronize the fixation or reproduction with all or part of another
recording, performer's performance or work; and
(d) does not cause the fixation or reproduction to be used in an advertisement
intended to sell or promote, as the case may be, a product, service, cause or
institution.
(2) The programming undertaking must record the dates of the making and
destruction of all fixations and reproductions and any other prescribed information
about the fixation or reproduction, and keep the record current.''
(c) replacing lines 37 to 40 on page 41 with the following:
``ing meets the conditions set out in subsection (1) and is part of a prescribed
network that includes the programming undertaking.''
(d) adding after line 8 on page 42 the following:
``(11) In this section, ``programming undertaking'' means
(a) a programming undertaking as defined in the Broadcasting Act;
(b) a programming undertaking described in paragraph (a) that originates
programs within a network, as defined in the Broadcasting Act; or
(c) a distribution undertaking as defined in the Broadcasting Act, in respect of the
programs that it originates. The undertaking must hold a broadcasting licence
issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
under the Broadcasting Act.
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;
(d) does not synchronize the reproduction with all or part of another recording,
performer's performance or work; and
(e) does not cause the reproduction to be used in an advertisement intended to sell or
promote, as the case may be, a product, service, cause or institution.
9039
(2) The broadcasting undertaking must record the dates of the making and
destruction of all reproductions and any other prescribed information about the
reproduction, and keep the record current.
(3) The broadcasting undertaking must make the record referred to in subsection
(2) available to owners of copyright in the sound recordings, performer's
performances or works, or their representatives, within twenty-four hours after
receiving a request.
(4) The broadcasting undertaking must destroy the reproduction when it no
longer possesses the sound recording or performer's performance or work embodied
in the sound recording, or at the latest within thirty days after making the
reproduction, unless the copyright owner authorizes the reproduction to be retained.
(5) If the copyright owner authorizes the reproduction to be retained, the
broadcasting undertaking must pay any applicable royalty.
(6) This section does not apply if a licence is available from a collective society to
reproduce the sound recording, performer's performance or work.
(7) In this section, ``broadcasting undertaking'' means a broadcasting undertaking
as defined in the Broadcasting Act that holds a broadcasting licence issued by the
Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission under that Act.''
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) 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:''
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 40
with the following:
``to promote a commercial product or service.''
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 41 with the
following:
``sixty days after the first broadcast of the fixation or reproduction, unless''
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 41 with the
following:
``six months after making it, unless''
[
English]
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the
agreement was a mover and seconder were named. I thought that
was the agreement this morning and I do not see that in the House
at the present time.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair was not aware of that. The fact
is we are not supposed to mention the fact that members are not in
the House. It therefore seems to be doing no violence to anybody to
ask a colleague to be a seconder.
It seems that is not acceptable.
I have the blues from this morning, thanks to our most efficient
table. The member for Fraser Valley East said we had an
unfortunate situation with a very ill member who is not able to
attend the House today for the debate. He wondered if there would
be unanimous consent of the House for the motions presented in the
name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona to be tabled by the
member for Kootenay East, the Reform critic in the area and
leading the debate for that party. He then asked if there would be
unanimous consent for those motions to have been deemed moved
and seconded.
I gather there was unanimous consent.
(1645)
The fact is the deemed mover is here.
An hon. member: The deemed seconder is not.
The Deputy Speaker: That is exactly the point. The part I read
from the blues would not seem to indicate that the matter was clear.
I think it is common ground here that the mover is the important
one, the seconder is not.
An hon. member: No, no.
The Deputy Speaker: I will hear representations on this matter.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. As you read out from the blues it is quite clear to me
that our whip asked for unanimous consent. Since our member who
put forward that motion is gravely ill we asked that our critic for
the area be the mover and that it be deemed to be carried.
Mr. Speaker, the word ``deemed'' is in there if you want to reread
that for the minister of heritage and the parliamentary secretary
because those are the two who are objecting to this. Maybe they
will see that your interpretation is the correct one and that the
seconder is deemed and therefore the motion should move forward
and not be objected to by the government as is the case.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary
could shed some more light on this, but as I have indicated the
word ``deemed'' is very clearly in the blues. This Chair was not
here this morning. I assume the parliamentary secretary was and
perhaps he can add some light on this.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect there was a request this morning for
unanimous consent to have the mover and a seconder and we
agreed to it.
I think there should have been a request if the hon. member was
not here to second it. We would have been glad to allow someone
else to second the motion. We will go along with that. We would go
along with allowing someone else to second the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fraser Valley East is
now here.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I tabled earlier today with the table the
request in which I did say at that time that the motions would be
deemed moved and seconded. I put forward that they would be
deemed moved and seconded and that is what we asked unanimous
consent for.
The Deputy Speaker: I sense that there is agreement.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
9040
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 41 with the
following:
``(a) the copyright owner or that owner's representative authorizes its''
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 11 on page 41.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 41 with the
following:
``after the six months, the programming under-''
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 41
with the following:
``exceptional documentary character, the undertaking may deposit it in an archive
and''
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 24 on page 41.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 29 on page 41.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) 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.''
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by
(a) replacing line 33 on page 41 with the following:
``made by a broadcasting undertaking and''
(b) replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 41 with the following:
``the broadcasting undertaking, as network is defined in that Act, or is an associate of
the broadcasting undertaking, as associate is defined in the regulations to that Act for
the purposes of the provisions governing ownership and control.''
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 8 on page 42
with the following:
``(5) and''
``(b) within sixty days after the day on which the broadcasting undertaking first
broadcasts the fixation or reproduction.''
(1650)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 42 with the
following:
``(b) within six months after the day on which ''
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 42 the
following:
``30.9 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, there is deemed to
have been no infringement of copyright where a broadcasting undertaking, within
the meaning of the Broadcasting Act, on or after August 16, 1990, but before the
coming into force of section 30.8, fixed or reproduced a performer's performance or
work, other than a cinematographic work or sound recording, if the undertaking
(a) was authorized to communicate the performer's performance, work or sound
recording to the public by telecommunication;
(b) made the fixation or the reproduction itself, for its own broadcasts; and
(c) did not use the fixation or reproduction to promote a commercial product or
service.
(2) For greater certainty, paragraph (1)(a) applies in respect of any proceeding
commenced on or after August 16, 1990, but not concluded before the coming into
force of section 30.8, and paragraph (1)(b) does not affect any proceeding
commenced on or after August 16, 1990, but concluded before the coming into force
of section 30.8, or any order made pursuant to that proceeding.''
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 42 the
following:
``30.9 It is not an infringement of copyright for any broadcaster to reproduce any
work, performer's performance or sound recording that it is legally entitled to
broadcast solely for the purposes of transferring that work, performer's performance
or sound recording to a technical format that is appropriate for the purposes of its
broadcasts, provided that all such reproductions shall be destroyed immediately
when the broadcaster ceases to be legally entitled to broadcast the work or other
subject-matter.
30.10 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, there is deemed to have
been no infringement of copyright where a broadcaster, on or after August 16, 1990
but before the coming into force of section 30.9, reproduced any work, performer's
performance or sound recording that it was legally entitled to broadcast solely for the
purposes of transferring that work, performer's performance or sound recording to a
technical format that was appropriate for the purposes of its broadcasts, provided
that all such reproductions shall be destroyed immediately after the day section 30.9
comes into force where the broadcaster on or before that day ceases to be legally
entitled to broadcast the work or other subject-matter.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1)
(a) applies in respect of any proceeding commenced on or after August 16, 1990, but
not concluded before the coming into force of section 30.8; and
(b) does not affect any proceeding commenced on or after August 16, 1990, but
concluded before the coming into force of section 30.8, or any order made pursuant
to that proceeding.''
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 42 the
following:
``30.9 It is not an infringement of copyright for any broadcaster to
(a) reproduce any work or other subject-matter that it is legally entitled to
broadcast, where it does so for the purposes of transferring that work or other
subject-matter to a technical format that is appropriate for the purposes of its
broadcasts, providing that the reproduction:
(i) is essential for the compatibility of the broadcast medium,
(ii) is used solely to facilitate the day-to-day operations of the broadcaster, and
(iii) is, when the broadcaster ceases to be legally entitled to broadcast the work or
other subject-matter, immediately destroyed by the broadcaster; or
(b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of any work or other
subject-matter reproduced under paragraph (a), providing the reproduction for
backup purposes is destroyed by the broadcaster immediately following the
broadcast of the original subject-matter for which a backup was made.''
(1655 )
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 96 the
following:
9041
``(3) Section 30.9 shall come into force on the coming into force of section 30.8.''
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 96 the
following:
``(3) Section 30.10 shall come into force on the coming into force of section
30.9.''
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
share with the House the reasons I am introducing amendments to
Bill C-32. I appreciate the consideration that members will give the
amendments and I am asking for the support of the House as I
believe the amendments address a number of concerns expressed to
me by local radio stations across Canada and, in particular, the
radio station situated in Guelph-Wellington, CJOY-AM and
MAGIC-FM.
I want to say from the start that I understand, appreciate and
support the need for Canadian artists to be compensated for their
work. We should all recognize their contribution. They deserve our
encouragement.
Canadians are rightfully proud of their artists. We must
recognize the artistic contribution of performers and sound
recording producers.
This is an issue in which I have been involved for quite some
time. I had the privilege of participating in the national Liberal
caucus subcommittee on neighbouring rights, chaired by the hon.
member for Essex-Kent. I have met in Kitchener with
representatives of the broadcast industry and I hosted a meeting of
the national Liberal caucus committee on economic development,
which I chair, on April 17, 1996.
I represent the very proud community of Guelph-Wellington.
Like many smaller communities, Guelph is served by a local radio
station, a daily newspaper, the Guelph Mercury, weekly and
bi-weekly newspapers like the Guelph Tribune, the Erin Advocate
and the Wellington Advertiser, and a local cable company affiliate,
Rogers, which has increased its coverage of local events.
We can and do listen to radio from Toronto, London or even parts
of the United States, but we rely on our local AM and FM radio
stations for weather, sports, entertainment and news which affects
us locally.
I know, for example, that my family listens to CJOY or MAGIC
to hear whether the school buses will be late in the event of a
snowstorm. This is an important service which cannot be replaced
should our radio station cease to operate. I can personally attest to
the importance of this medium when I, as a member of Parliament,
need to get a message across to my constituents.
The Minister of Finance recently visited Guelph. He was able to
participate in a call-in show with my constituents because a radio
station exists in my community. I am certain that most, if not all,
members of Parliament know the value of a local radio station in
their own communities.
Our radio station is a vital part of Guelph-Wellington. CJOY
went on the air in 1948. That means it will be celebrating its 50th
anniversary next year. CJOY and MAGIC not only broadcast
music, news and weather, they participate in the life of
Guelph-Wellington. The station provides airtime for the Guelph
Little Theatre and for productions at War Memorial Hall at the
University of Guelph. It has promoted the new Guelph Performing
Arts Centre. It provides scholarships for the annual Kiwanis music
festival.
There is no doubt that my community and hundreds like it would
be lessened should they lose their radio stations.
This brings me to my concern. Total losses for private radio in
1993-94, for example, amounted to $28 million. The industry has
been unprofitable since 1989-90. In fact, in the years between 1990
and 1994, radio lost $180 million in Canada. Many stations have
continued in operation because they are cross-subsidized by more
profitable stations in the same corporate family. That is one of the
reasons I asked for some consideration for smaller and unprofitable
stations in this legislation. To an extent the minister of heritage has
agreed and I am pleased by that.
(1700 )
Radio is part of the daily life of listeners and remains the most
intimate of media. Radio is often the primary source of local news.
It has a low concentration of ownership with the five largest owners
together owning only 19 per cent of all radio stations. Most
important, radio is a vital source of influence in the purchase of
music recordings in Canada.
Study after study indicates that radio promotes the sale of CDs,
cassettes and videos. In 1993, for example, a Decima Research poll
found that 51 per cent of teens who decided on their purchase
before buying at a record store stated that the main influence on
them was hearing the selection on the radio. Video ranked second
at 25 per cent and word of mouth was third.
Studies continue to point in the same direction; that is, airplay on
radio represents the single most important source of promotion for
recordings and is the most influential factor on the decision to
purchase a record, tape or CD. That is good news for our artists,
sound producers and music authors.
Radio continues to introduce Canadians to new music. I do have
a concern that without the amendments smaller unprofitable radio
stations will begin to close across Canada. That means that there
will be less performers being heard and less variety for Canadians.
Does this really help anyone? I think the answer to that is clearly
no.
The amendments I propose essentially deal with time shifting
and transfer of format. Let me explain. The local Rogers Cable
television station in Guelph, for example, records the annual Santa
Claus parade. We all know that this taping is often replayed several
times on the station. The bill presently allows Rogers to show the
event without paying copyright charges for 30 days from the day
the event was held. The amendments I am introducing will extend
that period to 60 days, allowing Rogers to play the show at
Christmas time or on Christmas day.
Transfer of format allows stations like CJOY to transfer music to
its hard drive and back up without having to pay additional fees.
Without this amendment, radio stations will pay three times to play
one piece of music.
9042
Other amendments allow radio stations to archive the recordings
in their own system rather than force the station to archive in an
official archive and would allow a network show to rebroadcast
without the local station having to pay again for the right to play it.
I recognize the importance of rewarding the artistic
contributions of our artists and the people who produce the
recordings. I do not believe that the amendments take anything
away from what they deserve. What the amendments do is protect
local radio, help keep it alive and assist it in its important work at
promoting Canadian talent.
I do not believe there is one member of Parliament who
represents a community with a local radio station who can say that
the community would be better off without that station. That is why
I am asking for support of my amendments.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the amendments by the member from the Liberal Party
who just spoke.
Our critic will elaborate a little more extensively on the one
difference I would like to make which is that the exemption should
be more than just 60 days. If radio is as important as the member
has said, if radio does as much as it does in that riding of hers and
allows the finance minister to spread his words of wisdom and
myth in that community, then certainly the hon. member would
want more than a 60 day exemption and the member would
appreciate a six month exemption which our critic has
recommended. I think that is about the only difference on this
particular amendment that we would have.
There are a couple of other things I would like to say on this
whole issue of broadcasting and radio. What the member failed to
say in her speech is that radio is already paying rights to play the
music, the rights to record and to delay broadcast and so on and it
pays a hefty fee. I have had representations from radio stations in
Calgary but obviously SOCAN is charging the music composers
and now it wants to extend this and pay royalties to the performers
and the record producers. I have a problem with this.
(1705)
What the radio stations really do is in the process of paying for
their right to play the music and to play the artist's production they
are promoting the very artists who then are trying to increase, like a
tax on the radio stations which makes it very difficult for radio
stations to survive. It is not that lucrative, as some may think, and
to raise their prices and to raise their costs to promote the very
artists who now want more money from them is a problem.
The problem is if we look at performers, they get paid, they get
money. The good ones go on to make big money. Record producers
charge a hefty fee to get into that studio, to get into an area where
they can put an artist on a CD, on a single or on an album. These
people get paid for their services and they get paid handsomely for
their services. Yet it is the radio stations that promote these artists
and now these artists thank them very much by saying ``we want to
tax you more''. This government is going to comply and go along
with that. I do not think that is right. It is unacceptable.
The other thing this brings up is the possible conflict with our
neighbour the United States. As we all know, Canadian radio
stations do not just play Canadian artists. Canadian radio stations
also play U.S artists. By making radio stations pay extra for the
Canadian talent is going to put them at a disadvantage to their
American counterparts who will not have this extra fee imposed on
them. They have an association similar to Canada, similar to
SOCAN, and they are not doing that.
It is also possible that we might be contravening some of the
agreements and rules within the North American Free Trade
Agreement with respect to the use of these extra funds by groups
like SOCAN and where does that money go and are we then giving
a special advantage or favour to the Canadian artists.
SOCAN, the collective which is apparently in charge of
collecting the 3.2 per cent royalties from Canadian broadcasters,
has an overhead of $19 million annually. This poses a reasonable
question. How much of this additional levy imposed on Canadian
broadcasters is going to end up in the hands of Canadians artists?
The projected annual revenue of neighbouring rights is in the $12
million to $14 million range.
Another reasonable question is where is this additional levy
imposed on Canadian broadcasters going to go. The artists tabled a
report showing an administrative cost of collecting the
neighbouring rights of $1.6 million to $1.8 million annually. This
is not credible given the overhead of SOCAN performing a
comparable function.
When this legislation was introduced in the spring of 1996
following consultations between the government and the industry a
compromise had been reached whereby all radio stations with
revenues under $1.25 million would be assessed an annual fee of
$100. The neighbouring rights percentage would be applied per
station on all revenues in excess of $1.2 million. These were to be
phased in over a five year period.
The committee recommendations were that the bill required that
a $100 basic royalty be applied to those stations with ad revenues
under $1.25 million. Full royalty tariffs would apply to stations
with ad revenues above that threshold. However, those stations
above $1.25 million ad revenues originally were going to be
granted a five year phase in.
(1710)
These amendments have reduced that phase in period to three
years. Sixty-five per cent of the radio stations come under $1.25
million ad revenue.
This reduction from five years to three years is in direct response
to demands by artists and pressure from the Bloc Quebecois during
committee hearings. Again, we feel the Liberals and the Bloc have
worked to the advantage of a small group of Quebec artists at the
expense of the users.
The heritage minister did not include ephemeral exemptions in
the original legislation and now she is forced to further jeopardize
9043
the industry's compromise in an attempt to get the co-operation of
artists, composers and performers.
With respect to the aspects of this amendment, which we are
supporting, I want to point out that in all cases what this bill is
doing is trying to ensure that certain people get paid for their
creativity.
The system we have now has been designed in such a way that
the industry itself is supposed to take care of those people who
create the product.
The industry itself should be ensuring, through the collection of
the SOCAN fees on radio, on television, in entertainment theatres,
et cetera, every place where their product is being played, that
money gets to the artists.
The artists have, in conjunction with complaining all along, said
that they do not get enough of the action from an album, that they
do not get enough fees when they perform somewhere, that their
agent takes away too much commission, that record producers
charge too much, that the money is not distributed fairly, that there
are too many layers of administrative red tape just like
government. Then what have they done?
What we have to be careful of in this House is that we do not
give in to their representations totally and willy-nilly without
recognizing that the industry has a responsibility to these artists as
well, not just government, not just the Copyright Act.
If these artists come to parliamentarians like us and say they are
not getting enough money, and record producers and performers
say they are not getting enough money, it is not the Copyright Act
that is supposed to ensure that they get enough money. The
Copyright Act already guarantees them that they get something for
the creative product they have produced.
It is the industry itself that has a responsibility. Members should
look into what publishing companies charge for their piece of the
action when somebody composes a piece of music.
What do agents get when they represent certain entertainers,
certain performers and certain Canadian artists? I know some
Canadian artists. I used to book Canadian artists. I know what these
people charge. I know what record producers charge to go in and
cut an album in their studios.
They are getting paid. If these artists are being taken advantage
of, it is not by the government and it is not by the laws of this
country. The law in place is good enough to ensure they get paid.
It is the industry itself that should take a look at itself. The artists
should be complaining to the industry and the whole layer of
bureaucracy on how to get the money to them.
Alanis Morissette apparently has sold 20 million CDs around the
world. At $20 each, that represents potentially $400 million. What
do members think she gets out of that $400 million? Do the
politicians here think she gets 10 per cent? Do politicians here
think she has now made $40 million, that she has receivables of
$40 million? No. She gets a lot less. She has generated that music.
She has generated and made her value worth $400 million on CDs
alone.
I will continue. We have some other amendments to continue
and debate.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the debate has been going on all day.
(1715 )
We are now at Group No. 7 which has a number of amendments
that deal basically with the ephemeral. It was well noted by the
hon. member in opposition that when we first presented the bill in
the House there was no ephemeral exception. Now we have that
ephemeral exception which is before the House in the amendments
the House is proposing.
There was some concern about whether networks and cable
television would be involved with the ephemeral exception. They
are under the same package. The government moved amendments
in order to clarify that. It felt they were coming out of the
amendments in December. We felt they were covered but the
industry felt it needed some more reassurance that it was covered.
That is why I think that in many cases the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington has withdrawn some of her amendments.
With the input from caucus, with her input and the input of a
number of others, that is why some of those amendments were
made.
We also felt quite strongly that the transfer of format was
probably in the bill. Due to requests from caucus members and
members of the public who wanted that clarified, who wanted
assurance, the government clarified that.
This section goes to the bill in a certain way especially for the
Reform members who have been lobbying to have this done, but
also for some of our members as well. Credit goes to all parties for
the type of balance we have worked for.
It is also important to note that there is a balance. No matter what
part of the bill is looked at, some feel we are leaning too far to the
creator's side and others feel we are leaning too far to the user's
side. We say that we have created a balance. We have taken some,
we have given some, we have negotiated some. We have listened to
the witnesses.
We listened to over 65 witnesses. We listened to the public and
we read the briefs sent to us. We have reacted to them. We said all
along that it was a complicated bill. No one would deny that.
9044
In light of the spirit of co-operation we have had today and the
type of debate we have had-it has been and continues to be a good
debate-and in light of the importance of this bill to both the
creators and the users who want to have this bill now and who want
it clarified, I would like to move the following motion, pursuant to
Standing Order 26(1):
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That, this House continue to sit today beyond the ordinary hour of daily of
adjournment for the purpose of concluding the report stage consideration of Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the
motion is deemed to have been adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1720 )
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 and 59.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue
of ephemeral exemption or time shifting as it is sometimes referred
to falls into the category of the discussion the parliamentary
secretary and I had previously. Frequently measures are brought
forward by the government that are not what we would consider to
be adequate. Although I recognize that they were brought forward
in response to the concerns that had been expressed over the issue
of ephemeral or time shifting, the measures that have been
proposed by the government, unfortunately in my judgment are
singularly inadequate.
It is going to put a tremendous onus on charities and cable
companies. I recognize that tapes can be maintained for a period of
time. But it is my judgment that period of time is simply not long
enough.
Many programs that are captured by the local cable companies
during the late summer and fall are broadcast at Christmas time. I
do not see how the amendments brought forward by the
government would capture that. In other words, the exception
proposed by the government will not permit that to happen.
I would like to look now on the impact of copyright in Bill C-32
on francophone broadcasters in general. I read from a brief I
received: ``Even if the proposed ephemeral exemptions limitation
respecting the promotion of a cause or institution were removed,
other qualifications of the exception would still make it possible
for the stations to use the exception. The proposed exception is
currently worded so that it will not apply where a collective can
licence an ephemeral reproduction''.
It is in this area of collectivity that we were speaking earlier
today. As a matter of fact, in the province of Quebec with
SODRAC, Société du droit de reproduction des auteurs,
compositeurs et éditeurs au Canada, because a collective exists and
because of the patchwork the legislation actually represents, a
problem remains in spite of the government's move to try and
alleviate it.
The bill was originally intended to take 1924 legislation and
bring it forward into 1997. It has not occurred in this instance. I
used the example earlier today of a small market radio station
where a person would be faced with row upon row of CDs that
someone will be taking down manually and putting into the CD
player as opposed to going into a medium or larger market area
where cuts from those CDs have been transferred on to a direct
drive and can be accessed at the drop of a pin.
This bill does not recognize the difference between physical
manual labour filing and electronic filing. Electronic filing is
simply lifting those digital impressions from the CDs or from other
medium and transferring them to a direct drive or some other
medium. The legislation does not reflect the reality of electronics
today. That is a real shame.
Broadcasters across Canada are going to be squeezed as
undoubtedly the government is going to be forcing neighbouring
rights through. This means that some of the larger operations are
going to be looking at a fairly sizeable bill. It is not the $100 bill for
the small operation, it is the larger bill for the larger operations.
Because of the sheer size of these operations and the number of
people that work for them, they will be able to make choices to use
electronic equipment, possibly to replace some of their staff so they
can pay the neighbouring rights. Then they are going to be faced
with a dilemma because they do not have a true ephemeral
exemption. There is really no transfer of medium possibility that is
a sure thing. We could end up with some kind of a collective or
some artist coming after us because we electronically transferred a
signal back and forth. Then they are caught on double horns of the
dilemma.
(1725)
The first dilemma is that the government is asking them to pay
higher fees in the form of neighbouring rights. The second
9045
dilemma is that they do not know if they will be able to pay for that
by laying off one or two people or whatever it is going to take to
pay that bill. They do not know if they are going to be able to make
use of the electronics that are available today because there is no
surety with this legislation.
It was repeated time and time again in committee that what the
broadcasters and those in the broadcasting business so desperately
need is the assurance of knowing where they are going.
I respect the artists who came before us as I respect the
collectives and the artist organizations when they say: ``We do not
intend to use our privilege of having these copyright privileges''.
That is all very well and good but if a business is making a $20,000,
$200,000 or $200 million decision on what it is going to be doing
about new electronic equipment, would it not be nice if it had a bit
of an idea of what the rules were going to be when a new crop of
artists or perhaps some new people are involved in managing that
collective?
This is one of the most flawed parts of the legislation in that a
dollar and cent number cannot be applied to it. This is going to
create an insecurity within the broadcast industry that should have,
would have and could have been resolved with a little bit clearer
intent expressed by the government. I think it is a shame.
All I can say is that contrary to all of the wonderful catcalls that
we get from the other side, I really believe that at some point,
probably in this next election, Reform is going to prevail and when
we become government we are going to straighten this sucker out.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you
will find consent for the following order:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Private Members' Business today, if a
recorded division is requested on Bill C-214 it will be deemed deferred to the end of
the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, March 17.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and Motions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 and 59.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, listening to this prolonged
debate and looking at the eleven and a half pages of amendments in
the Order Paper, I cannot help but think there must be a lot of
disorganization in the background of this legislation. I wonder why
the government does not go back to the drawing board and start out
with something that makes sense to all concerned and the public
can use.
However, we are now debating these amendments line by line.
The question of the ephemeral exemptions is a particularly trying
one in my riding. Although it is a vast area, probably about
one-fifth the size of the province of Ontario, there are within that
area only three radio stations, one cable outlet and one independent
television station. They are all going to suffer from this legislation.
Some of them are going to suffer so much that I am afraid they
might be lost.
That does not make any difference to the government members
or to their friends and accomplices on the separatist side who have
been working hand in glove devising this legislation.
As a somewhat technical person, one of the things in this
legislation that I find most offensive is the lack of any real
exemption for the transfer of formats. Most smaller radio stations
have fairly extensive libraries, some of them in two, three or even
four formats. It is a dog's breakfast. It is that way because they
cannot afford to make a massive conversion. Now we are going to
tell them, when we pass this bill, that their libraries, unless they are
willing to pay for the transfer of formats every time they take
something off the shelf, have become basically useless.
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon.
member. He will have eight minutes left in his intervention when
we revert to this matter after Private Members' Business.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9045
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 13, 1996 consideration of
the motion that Bill C-214, an act to provide for improved
information on the cost of proposed government programs, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-214, sponsored by
my hon. colleague from Durham.
9046
Just by way of background, there is a kinship between us. During
the 1993 election the member for Durham and I were the only two
chartered accountants to be elected to the House of Commons. That
is a shame because one of the things that we have found is that
virtually everything we touch in this place eventually has
something to do with dollars.
This is a very important bill from the standpoint that the member
has asked somewhat of a rhetorical question of the House to
consider and that is whether we have all the information we need to
do the job we have to do. Certainly, as members well know, there
are many items which come before us for consideration.
I just had a quick look at the House business summary. I was
somewhat taken aback when I looked at the second session of the
35th Parliament. We have had quite a substantial number of
proposals come before the House. There were about 84 government
bills presented to the House. I believe there were 176 private
members' bills, a third of which were votable items. There were
another 276 private members' motions. About a third of those were
also votable items. There has been one Senate bill in this session.
The member raises an interesting issue. There are an awful lot of
matters which come before this place for consideration. In his
speech the member quite correctly pointed out that sometimes
members come to this place to vote on an issue and they are not
familiar with the bill, the motion or the item before the House. It is
fair to say that it is not possible for members of Parliament to be
fully apprised of absolutely everything that comes before the
House. Indeed, that is why there are committees on which members
participate more fully in the issues coming before them. Members
cannot possibly even read them, never mind appreciate the
complexity and the implications of them.
The member raised a very important point and that is with
respect to fiscal accountability. Recently in the tobacco bill there
was a report stage motion which was passed by this place and
incorporated into the bill which has been referred to the Senate.
The motion was proposed by the hon. member for
Lambton-Middlesex. It basically said that the regulations
associated with a piece of legislation would have to come back to
the committee for review and for scrutiny prior to being approved,
rather than going through the normal process.
(1735 )
That tends to show the concern and the interest of the House to
work toward ways to improve where possible fiscal responsibility
and accountability so that we can say to our constituents that we
have on those matters which we are directly involved in had an
opportunity to fully scrutinize not only the intent and the context of
legislation coming before us but certainly the financial and fiscal
impact of any legislation, whether it be to do with programs or bills
or modification of existing programs that the government may
have.
I looked at one of the most interesting questions that the member
for Durham raised. It was how did this $600 billion deficit get
created. Is it something that could have been avoided had we been
in a position to perhaps scrutinize more fully in history the matters
that came before the House of Commons during the last 25 years
when this deficit was created.
The member will know that a substantial portion of that debt is
interest and compound interest. Notwithstanding, it still is a
substantial amount of dollars.
On that point alone I do not believe and I am not going to accept
the member's full analysis that the scrutiny might have dealt with
the issue of the national debt. The member will well know that
there are things which occur in our society which are very
expensive. As an example, spousal abuse in our society is a very
terrible thing. There was a joint Canada-U.S. forum last summer in
which an analysis was done and papers were presented.
In Canada it was estimated that the cost of spousal abuse to the
Canadian taxpayer, health, productivity and other costs associated
with it, was something like $2.1 billion. That is an awful lot of
money. There is no amount of scrutiny of legislation or regulations
that could help us avoid that cost and yet that cost is an incremental
cost, a burden to the taxpayer which in fact eventually finds its way
to the national debt.
Second, there is the issue of alcohol abuse. Alcohol abuse is an
issue which I have spent a lot of time on. I have given some
information to the House from time to time about the cost of
substance and alcohol abuse. The most recent information is that
alcohol abuse costs Canadians something like $15 billion a year,
not to mention the loss of life, to do with whether it be straight
medical problems, or accidents, suicides and the like. There are
some 19,000 people a year who die from alcohol misuse. That is a
significant expenditure which is occurring on an annual basis, $15
billion a year. We can imagine how those costs accumulate and
compound and add to the national debt.
I would then suggest a recent issue, the tobacco issue. It is
another one that Canadians well know. It is a very serious problem
in terms on its health impacts on Canadians. Forty thousand
Canadians die each from it. There is a significant cost. I believe it
was estimated that the provinces alone spend $3.5 billion on health
care directly related to tobacco related problems. If we look at all
of the other ancillary costs, that does accumulate closer to some
$10 billion a year.
I could give some examples to show that the principle is
something that I support, the fiscal accountability and the
responsibility and the ability to be able to communicate that, that I
have done my job, or I have seconded that responsibility to those I
feel have taken up the responsibility to do the work on my behalf
and I will rely on them.
9047
That principle of secondment is extremely important. It is an
element which perhaps the member did not develop as much as he
might have in his speech.
When I was a hospital trustee for the Mississauga hospital for
nine years there was an awful lot going on there. The public
hospitals act said that the full 100 per cent of the responsibilities
for the operations of that hospital were in the hands of the trustees.
There is no possibility that the delivery of the direct medical
services, the administration and virtually every aspect of the
operation of a major urban hospital could be handled by a board of
trustees on a voluntary basis, some 20 men and women.
(1740)
Under the Ontario hospitals act one of the things we had was the
trustee's guide which basically said we are responsible to make
sure that we hire responsible people. As a chief of staff, as a senior
administrator we are responsible for making sure that we have
people we feel have the credentials and to whom we can second
that responsibility so as trustees we could discharge our
responsibilities not directly but in a combination of direct and
indirect secondment.
In this case we do as members of Parliament second an awful lot
of responsibility and rely very heavily on committees and other
members to do the work. To that extent I am not as critical maybe
of House operations.
In summary I would simply like to say that the aspect of fiscal
accountability responsibility is something I know the member has
worked very hard for. I congratulate him on the initiative. It is an
excellent example of how people in this place, backbenchers, have
made a contribution to the thinking of this place. If more members
of Parliament would think and show initiative like the member for
Durham I think this place would be a better place for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this bill,
C-214, was presented in this House by the hon. member for
Durham. It is intended to provide for improved information on the
cost of proposed government programs.
I know the hon. member for Durham well, as he was vice-chair
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when I was chair.
From that time on, I have been aware of the interest the hon.
member has in any administrative or legislative measure with a
potential for improving the government's accountability and
responsibility, more necessary than ever because of the
astronomical amounts invested by the taxpayers annually in the
workings of the federal government.
Like the hon. member for Longueuil, who has already spoken on
Bill C-214 on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to assure the
hon. member for Durham who introduced this bill of my support
and to require the Liberal government, at the time of introducing a
bill in Parliament that authorizes the program, or when the
regulation that authorizes the program, to make a declaration of
the estimated annual cost of each new program, expressed as a total
cost and as a per capita cost.
The bill also calls for the auditor general to be involved,
providing proof that the method of calculation of the costs is valid
and a good estimate, as stated in the hon. member's bill. This
evaluation of the method of calculating and estimating costs by the
auditor general would reassure the public about the objectivity of
the calculations and cost estimates.
The objective of Bill C-24 is to require all departments to
provide a financial analysis or a detailed cost breakdown of any
new legislative measure. Assessing these costs on a per capita basis
will enable each citizen to have a better grasp of what each new
piece of legislation will cost him personally, what will really come
out of his pocket each time the government creates a new program.
This bill is also intended to make legislators and public servants
more aware of the financial impact of the various legislative
measures. It is also intended to get the public to scrutinize the
various government expenditures more closely.
The Liberal government prefers camouflage to transparency and
to the analysis of the true costs of government programs. The
Liberals' policy has always been: it is better to keep the public in
the dark about the true costs of programs, and it is far better to keep
the auditor general at a distance, for he could make an objective
and transparent judgment of them.
We saw this during the finance committee hearings on the
transfer of $2 billion in Canadian capital to the United States,
tax-free. The Liberal majority and the chair of the committee
himself tried to back the auditor general into a corner for having
dared voice a dissenting opinion on the controversial decision by
Revenue and Finance concerning this unusual transfer of funds to
the U.S.
(1745)
In terms of political debate and public morality, we have seen
better. Instead of going after the message, the Liberals go after the
messenger. They want to continue to ensure that the Office of the
Auditor General gets involved only after the fact, when the deed
has already been done, and taxpayers' money has been committed
and spent.
Bill C-214, introduced by the member for Durham will not,
unfortunately, be given the support of his party, because he calls for
innovative administration, public transparency and objectivity
defining the role of the auditor general. Such an honest, open and
frank approach to voters and taxpayers is also totally foreign to the
tradition and the culture of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Bill C-214 will likely, regretfully, remain wishful thinking,
whereas the astronomical debt of $600 billion will urgently require
greater transparency and vigorous action, which the government to
date has been unable to provide.
9048
The latest budget is indicative in this regard. The Minister of
Finance could have done a lot better. He could have taken
advantage of an extraordinary economic situation, shall we say, and
real manoeuvring room-much more than he claims to have-to
really help the unemployed and children in poverty.
These diversionary tactics of which the Liberals are past masters
may well abort Bill C-214, and its objectives will no doubt remain
a dead issue.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
address the House in the debate with regard to private member's
Bill C-214.
This bill is an act to provide improved information on the cost of
proposed government programs and has been introduced by my
colleague, the hon. member for Durham.
As members will recall, the bill purports disclosing in
Parliament the estimated annual cost of every new program the
government decides to implement.
If a new program had to be authorized by legislation, this
proposal would require that a disclosure be made when the bill was
introduced. If enabling legislation was not required, the disclosure
would be made at the time a regulation order or one of the
instruments was issued.
This proposal further requires that the auditor general provides
an opinion on the validity of each cost estimate. The underlying
objective of the proposed legislation is laudable but the results of
such a bill, if passed, would be costly and administratively
cumbersome. This act would result in such red tape for approvals
of any kind that the business of the government would slow to a
halt.
Applying this legislation to all new programming proposals
regardless of size would raise all sorts of issues of interpretation, of
applying this act, what constitutes a new program, what should be
included in the cost calculations, direct costs only, indirect costs,
opportunity costs. This proposal itself would constitute a program
for which costs and benefits have yet to be determined.
This bill would also create a new role for the auditor general's
office in the expenditure management process. The bill would
require that the auditor general's office carry out detailed reviews
of thousands of individual transactions before they take place to
verify whether costing assumptions that the governments use were
valid.
This would create a huge additional workload for the auditor
general's office to perform these pretransaction audits. It would
have to divert most of its resources away from the audits that focus
on whether programs deliver value for money.
(1750 )
Our auditor general and those in many other countries have
moved away from this type of detailed pretransaction control and
toward broader value for money auditing. The auditor general's
mandate is generally one of an ex post review and critique of
government spending. It is not likely that the auditor general would
readily agree to validate cost estimates on this scale.
I applaud the basic premise of the bill but unfortunately it
presumes that we are currently not providing this type of cost
information for government programs. This assumption is not
correct. I am sure my colleagues would agree that the steps this
government has taken toward more open and cost effective
government are unparalleled in the Canadian federal government.
Perhaps it would be useful to cast our gaze south of the Canadian
border for a minute before considering this proposal.
One will observe that there are a number of Republican
representatives in the American Senate who want to institute
extremely complex regulatory procedures. Implementing those
procedures would so complicate the U.S. system that the regulators
would be prevented from implementing regulations in the interest
of the public good. One could characterize such a system as being a
state of paralysis by analysis. Excessive red tape would slow the
system down to a crawl in spite of the insistent public demand for
more responsible government.
In Canada we have taken a different approach to the regulatory
process. Ours is a process that is concerned with cost effective
regulation. The Canadian regulatory system already has
mechanisms in place to get the cost information. Every regulatory
initiative must be included in the Treasury Board's annual
regulatory plan which lays out the government's regulatory
initiative for the coming year.
Departments and agencies have to list what is planned and why it
is necessary. This includes a brief description of benefits, costs,
alternatives considered and how the department and agency will
consult. There is also a section that provides information on
initiatives that are scheduled to be implemented in the coming year.
For every initiative submitted the department or agency must
make a cost declaration to identify the anticipated costs. The
initiative is then classified based on both anticipated cost and
degree of acceptance. For example, an initiative with an anticipated
cost of $1 million will be considered a major initiative if it has a
low degree of acceptance, but an intermediate cost initiative if it
has a high degree of acceptance. From the beginning of the process
regulators are mindful of costs.
That is just the beginning of accountability for costs in Canadian
regulation. In November 1995 the Treasury Board of Canada
secretariat introduced federal regulatory policy which discusses the
requirements for new regulations. The objective of this policy is to
ensure the government uses its regulatory powers for the greatest
9049
net benefit to Canadian society, in other words, that its regulations
are cost effective.
When regulating authorities must ensure that they comply with
six general policy requirements. First, a program or a risk exists,
intervention by the federal government is justified and regulation is
the best alternative. Second, Canadians are consulted and they have
the opportunity to participate in developing or modifying
regulations and regulatory programs. Third, the benefits outweigh
the costs to Canadians, their governments and businesses. In
managing risks, resources are used where they do the most good.
Fourth, adverse impacts on the capacity of the economy to
generate wealth and employment are minimized and no
unnecessary regulatory burden is imposed. In particular,
information and administrative requirements are limited and they
impose the least cost possible, the special circumstances of small
businesses are addressed, and parties proposing equivalent means
to conform with regulatory requirements are given positive
consideration.
Fifth, intergovernmental agreements are respected and full
advantage is taken of opportunities for co-ordination with other
governments and agencies.
(1755 )
Sixth, systems are in place to manage the resources effectively.
In particular, to ensure that the regulatory process management
standards are followed, compliance and enforcement policies are
articulated as appropriate, and resources have been approved and
are adequate to discharge enforcement responsibilities effectively
and to ensure compliance where the regulation binds the
government.
The regulatory policy provides for cost effective regulation. It
provides for regulation that is flexible, focused on ends rather than
means, focused on high priority problems rather than unnecessary
detail and based on a partnership model with other governments
and those subject to the regulation. It guarantees an open and
transparent development process and requires that the government
consider all alternatives before choosing the regulation.
This policy goes a long way toward to ensuring that Canadians
have smarter regulation, free from unnecessary and costly burden.
It provides for regulation only where it is the best alternative and
only where the overall benefits clearly exceed the costs.
In other cases the government provides a clear indication of
costs either at the time a new program is announced or in the
budget if these costs are significant. In the budget of March 6 of
this year the Minister of Finance emphasized the need for frugality
in everything we do. Waste in government is simply not tolerated.
We have put aside the notion that new government programs
require additional spending. What they do require is the will to
reallocate. In the March budget every initiative involved a shift of
resources from lower to higher priority areas.
The announcement in 1995 of the expenditure management
system committed the government to making the best use of
taxpayer dollars to deliver quality services to Canadians. The
system is built on the principles of funding for new initiatives or
priorities by reviewing existing expenditures and then reallocating
money.
The expenditure management system will foster greater fiscal
responsibility and help the government to meet its fiscal targets.
Using business plans will allow departments to set out strategies
for changing their businesses to reflect budget targets and
government priorities.
The presentation to standing committees of departmental
outlooks on program priorities and expenditures will help us to
review expenditure trends and priorities for the coming years and
provides a context for examining the estimates of the Government
of Canada.
On March 7, 1996 the government released its progress report on
getting government right. We recognized that the people of Canada
are concerned about the cost of government and how those costs
are being controlled. They want better governance. We have laid
out for them what we have done and what we will continue to do to
achieve this.
The program review exercise launched two years ago was the
most fundamental review of federal programs and services since
World War II. Its goal was to identify the federal government's core
roles and to refocus resources on primary areas where reducing
overall spending was important. The results of this review are
changing the face of the federal government and will continue to do
so for many years.
The government continues to ask the important question of how
can programs be delivered in the most efficient manner. The
auditor general continues to provide advice in this area. As long as
this remains a government priority, departments and agencies will
continue to do a good job in following up on every opportunity for
improvement.
The combination of the two initiatives, the revamped
expenditure management system and program review, opened the
door for what we are now engaged in, an effort to bring results
orientation to the information we in Parliament use.
We are entering a new era of governance, an era that will be
characterized by greater transparency and dialogue about policy
directions.
9050
(1800)
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am please to continue the debate on this private
member's bill moved and drafted by my hon. colleague from
Durham.
I endorse the bill. I support the bill. I endorse the concept. The
member would agree that some fine tuning of all our bills which
emanate from private members' business can best be done at
committee.
The bill causes the taxpayer, the parliamentarian and the drafter
of a bill or statute to recognize at the front end the fiscal costs
associated with the change, whatever it might be. It is not a new
idea but it is the first time it has been proposed here. It is an
excellent idea.
The current procedure, as I understand it, begins in the executive
branch of government where a bill is drafted and proposed.
Although I have never sat at the cabinet table I understand that
modern cabinets have financial assessment figures and projections
at the front end whenever they consider legislation. As we are all
aware a bill proposed in the House by the government has the
support of cabinet. Before cabinet makes a decision cabinet knows
what the numbers will be.
I would have thought it would be a fairly simple operation to
make the same numbers available when the bill is presented in the
House of Commons. Someone has already done the work on the
calculator. I would have thought it would be pretty easy to add one
page to the bill or the proposal and make it available for
parliamentary debate and committee perusal as the statute or
reform is being considered.
As it sits now, the House does not necessarily have this
information as it considers a bill. It may in some cases be made
privy to the departmental calculations as the bill goes through the
committee process. In addition I have noted, as I am sure all
members have noted, that most ministries deal with these issues
publicly when they put forward a proposal. In any event I do not
think it is a bad idea at all to nail this little procedure down at the
front end.
To draw two analogies of similar concepts at work, the
parliamentary secretary referred to what is called the regulatory
impact analysis statement, RIAS, which is now used for almost all
government regulatory initiatives. That impact statement for
regulations includes references to the cost. That is a useful tool. It
does not show up in this House because it is regulatory. The field
has already been delegated by another statute to the executive
branch. The RIAS is a very useful document. My colleague's
proposal would in effect put a financial impact statement on the
front end of a bill.
The second analogy is with environmental impact statements
that are required by statute in many different areas now. They are
very useful in assessing the potential impact of statutes and
changes in the way we do things in government.
The backdrop of this should include a recognition that the
parliamentary estimates procedure, the process by which
Parliament is supposed to review government spending, does not
always work as effectively as we would like. Over the years this
has been reformed from time to time. Every few years we revise the
estimates procedures to try to enable Parliament to get a better
handle on what is a very large and complex matter these days,
government spending. It is quite huge, exceeding the $100 billion
mark. I understand there is ongoing work to improve, change and
update this procedure in the House of Commons. The initiative put
forward by my colleague from Durham can only enhance whatever
process we might subsequently adopt in the House.
(1805)
As I understand it, given that the government and cabinet already
do calculations for all government initiatives put forward by way of
statute or changes in policy, given that it already happens in camera
in cabinet, and given that the information is not always made
public in the process that brings bills into the House, I am very
much in favour of a House mandated procedure that would cause
the numbers to be placed in front of all of us as we debate, pass and
not pass legislation.
With tongue in cheek I might ask-and I do not need the
answer-whether there is an estimate provided by the mover of the
bill of its financial impact. It might have been a nice start. I do not
know whether the hon. member has done that, but it is a great idea
and I will support it.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Durham will sum
up the debate, there being no further speakers wishing to rise.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to honour the many speakers from all parties who
stood in support of my Bill C-214.
It shows what the House can be with all members working
together for the common objectives of better visibility and better
accountability of how governments spend. It empowers people.
The last time I rose was in the first hour of debate on the bill. I
would like to mention some organizations that support it. The
parliamentary secretary made reference to the auditor general. He
stated:
We share your views that the cost of government programs and operations should
be made more visible to Parliament and taxpayers.
Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada also
support it.
I would like to read a final comment from a letter that I received
since the last time I was on my feet. It is from the Canadian
9051
Institute of Chartered Accountants annual letter to the finance
minister. It states:
We believe that government must provide cost information and analysis prior to
making decisions that affect the delivery of existing programs or initiating new
programs. We believe that this cost information should be made available to the
public in order to foster greater awareness of government spending.
A private member's bill such as 214 that has been brought forward calls for the
departments of governments to provide for financial or cost analysis of each piece of
legislation on its introduction. In this way government would be more conscious of
the financial impact that legislation would have and a greater scrutiny of government
spending would be provided to the general public.
We urge the federal government to ensure speedy passage of this bill.
On my way to the House this morning I heard a program on the
CBC that talked about gambling. It occurred to me that quite often
when individual members of the House rise to vote on various
pieces of legislation that is what we are doing. We are gambling but
we are not using our money. We are using taxpayers' money.
The bottom line is that we have developed a system of taxation
that is not consensual. The history of taxation, while some people
at home might have a big yawn, is really quite fascinating. It goes
back to the time of the Romans and others who tried to implement
taxation systems.
The one important thing about a taxation system that starts to fall
apart is the day when people do not believe they consented to be
taxed.
(1810 )
In its simplistic form, when taxation first came into existence
people could see what they were getting. They would invest in
roads, local schools and services they communally decided to
invest in and which they benefited from.
When people look at their paycheques today, at the gross figure
and the net, they do not understand the difference. Worst than that,
many of those people do not believe they were part of the process
that made the decision for that level of taxation.
As a result people generally have a negative attitude toward
government. They do not figure they are part of the process. They
cannot control it. They cannot control the money that is leaving
their wallets. They become cynical. Generally the electorate is
cynical.
The legislation is trying to let these people back into the loop so
that they can be part of the process of change and can feel they are a
part of the consensual process. Then they can say they understand
how much it will cost and whether it is a good thing. It would let
them have their say.
Most important, it would empower members of Parliament in the
Chamber who represent those people to make those decisions. In
the case they do not want to make them themselves we would have
the proper power to do that.
In closing, this is not a new concept. We have estimates from
Australia and other countries. It is a matter of simply putting those
numbers in a bill, allowing the people in and shedding a bit of light
on the government process in Ottawa.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the bill stands referred to the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
_____________________________________________
9051
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 17, 19, 20, 24 to 38, 58 to 59.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia has eight minutes remaining in his
intervention.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted I
was making reference to the fact that many small radio stations
depend rather heavily on their libraried material, which can be in
several different formats depending on how old the station is.
The legislation with its lack of considerations for transfer of
format does not recognize advances in technology. As a matter of
fact it penalizes radio stations that might want to advance their
technology. It is somewhat like the weavers of Manchester
breaking up the steam looms. We are moving into the 21st century
but the government does not recognize that. The anti-technological
biases of the Minister of Heritage being well known, I am not
terribly surprised by it.
The other question regarding ephemeral rights refers to the
length of time people will be allowed to maintain material in their
files before it has to be destroyed or at least not used. The 30 days
9052
proposed is preposterously short. Six months, which is what the
industry requested, would have been quite reasonable.
I would like to read a letter received from the Kiwanis Club of
Pembroke, Ontario. It may cast some light on how this lack of
reasonable time shift will affect some of the charitable ventures
that rely upon broadcast. I will read it in its entirety.
The Kiwanis Club's efforts to ensure continued Easter Seal benefits for the
children in our community, could be seriously jeopardized by provisions in the new
Copyright bill currently being debated in Ottawa.
Dennis Runge, Chairman, said today that he is sure that it is just an oversight by
the Members of Parliament, who have no idea that the fund-raising telethons Easter
Seals have so successfully held with CHRO TV over the years could be really
harmed by some small exceptions which have inexplicably been omitted from this
proposed bill.
Runge explained that the problem is with the entertainment portions of the
broadcast, which are so important in attracting viewers. ``CHRO has told us that
under the proposed Copyright Bill, they could be fined, or else have to pay
additional costs and undertake a major effort to clear the rights, just for taping local
performers a few weeks ahead of the broadcast, and then playing it back during the
telethon''.
The Kiwanis Club believes that if it loses the ability to showcase these
entertainers, the broadcast will suffer. And, if either they or CHRO TV have to pay a
second time just for the necessity to tape and playback these performances, the costs
will add to the telethon budget, and not as much money will be able to be directed
into Easter Seals.
Runge says that CHRO TV has indicated it wants to continue to do the broadcast,
that it believes in the work of the Kiwanis Club and wants to support our valuable
work in the community. However, CHRO TV has also said that if the Copyright
legislation is passed as is, the future of the telethon will have to be seriously
re-examined.
The Kiwanis Club says ``local Members of Parliament have to tell the government
that broadcasters should be giving `time shift' and `transfer of format' exceptions in
the proposed Copyright Bill, which would eliminate the problem, and permit
Kiwanis and CHRO TV to continue working for the benefit of people in Pembroke
and surrounding area.
``Sometimes it is not clear that new legislation can have detrimental effects in a
community'' said Runge. ``But this time we have been able to see the problem
coming, and hopefully our MPs will understand that it is up to them to see that the
people of our town don't lose out by a careless decision made in Ottawa''.
(1815)
It is signed by Dennis Runge, chairman of the Kiwanis Club of
Pembroke, Ontario.
This is a very typical example of the way in which people with
good intentions try to protect everybody from everything
imaginable and end up creating severe problems for other people
who do not deserve to have problems. I am sure they have received
letters similar to this. They must have received them by the
hundreds. I would hope that they would start to give a bit of
consideration to what they are doing and make serious amendments
to this bill, not just to gratify the Quebec entertainers who have
been getting everything they want, but to think about the service
clubs and the small community stations all over Canada that are
going to suffer under this legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 17. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
(1820 )
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
9053
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion
No. 30.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. That recorded division will also apply to Motion
No. 58.
The next question is on Motion No. 37. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion
No. 59.
We will now move to Group No. 8.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
9054
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-32, in Clause 19, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 28 on page 46.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-32, in Clause 19, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 41 on page 46,
and lines 1 to 17 on page 47.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 40. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Group No. 9.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 45. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The question is now on the motions in Group No. 10.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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''
(1825)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-32, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 38 on page 82, 1
to 47 on page 83, 1 to 41 on page 84, 1 to 46 on page 85, 1 to 44 on page 86, 1 to 44
on page 87, 1 to 46 on page 88, 1 to 46 on page 89, 1 to 42 on page 90 and 1 to 34 on
page 91.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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''
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are
times in this parliamentary life when one has to wonder what in the
world the government is up to. This particular blank tape levy
certainly is one of them.
It was pointed out by the consumers association in its
presentation to the committee that the mark-up, which is going to
be applied by the government as an additional cost to everyone
9055
buying blank tapes, will be applied at the point of entry into
Canada. As everyone knows, about 95 per cent of all of the blank
audio tapes sold in Canada are imported.
Therefore, if a nominal 35 per cent charge is applied on to a60 cent tape, now it becomes a 95 cent tape. When it was a 60 cent
tape it would have gone from the original importer to some kind of
a jobber or distributor, possibly to a wholesaler but more likely
directly from the jobber or wholesaler directly to a K-Mart, a
Wal-Mart or Eaton's or wherever it would go and we would have a
lot of 99 cent tapes or $1.29 tapes with the mark-up applied to the
60 cent landed cost of the tape.
We have been promised what will now happen is the addition of
35 cents, more or less. I do not buy that but let us take 35 cents.
Instead of a starting point of 60 cents it will be 95 cents and we will
never see 99 cent tapes again. We are going to see a sale price of
$1.49 or $1.89 instead of a 99 cent tape.
I do not understand the thought process of the government
because if the $12 million it says this tape tax will end up creating
was going to be ending up in the hands of the people who they
intend for it, I would like to ask who is going to pay the
administrative cost to collect the money in the first place? Who is
going to pay the administrative costs to be able to distribute the$12 million?
We are going to create a business of collecting and distributing a
certain portion of the money that will be extracted from the
consumer. The consumer will be paying substantially more because
of the decision not only to apply, if it is indeed a 35 cent charge, but
the place in which it is applied in the feeding change of the
mark-ups. It is applied right at the very start.
If the 35 cents is applied to a 60 cent tape, 95 cent starting point,
$1.49 sale price, then on top of that will be the provincial tax and
GST applied to the mark-up that was applied to the 35 cent charge.
It is absolutely crazy.
This money is not going to get to the people who the government
says it is going to get to because of the cost of administration,
collection and distribution, really makes me wonder why we are
doing this. The minister seems to pride herself very frequently on
talking about protecting Canadian culture.
What really goes on more often than not-we just need to take a
look at Sports Illustrated for an example-is we end up punching
Uncle Sam in the nose. Unfortunately the people on the other side
of the 49th parallel have a tendency to get a little bit agitated when
we do that.
The industry in the United States is going to say now: ``Just a
second. Is it not true that the majority of the things that are being
recorded from, in other words the CDs and the tapes, is it not a fact
that the majority of the music in that medium that is being
purchased in a Canadian store is actually an American product?''
The answer to that question is, yes, the vast majority of it is.
About 70, 80 to 90 per cent of the product that is being purchased in
a store comes through U.S. distribution.
(1830)
How much logic does someone need to realize that the industry
on the other side of the 49th parallel is going to say ``you say you
are collecting $12 million, we want 80 per cent of the $12 million,
we want to collect the money that is due us because the music that
is being copied is our property in the first place''.
To turn around and make this money available, which will be
coming from the blank tapes, exclusively to Canadian based artists
and organizations is absolutely going to draw the attention of the
U.S. We have already had a warning shot across our bow on this
one.
If we are going to be saddling the Canadian taxpayer with taxes
on taxes on mark-ups that are created to create this $12 million
pool which is going to be attacked by the U.S. government, what
are we accomplishing? We are just creating another trade irritant. It
does not make any sense.
Furthermore, there is the matter of principle, which we have
talked about from a very pragmatic perspective. When the minister
was before the heritage committee she said that the vast majority of
the 44 million tapes purchased in Canada every year, and there is
some question about that number, are being used for the illegal
copying of prerecorded material.
What about the churches? What about the colleges? What about
the reporters? What about the people putting on sale seminars?
What about people who have a legitimate use for these blank tapes?
They are guilty by association and they are guilty by virtue of
having the audacity to buy a blank audio tape. Suddenly they are
guilty of some kind of crime. They are not guilty.
Any law in Canada that as a matter of principle assumes the guilt
of a person who is undertaking a normal commercial transaction or
indeed doing anything fundamentally in principle is wrong.
In collecting this $12 million, I predict this here and now. I look
forward unfortunately with some chagrin to knowing that five
years from now we will look back on this speech and be able to say
``He was right, we created a trade irritant. That trade irritant
actually spilled over to something to do with lumber and to
something to do with wheat. It spilled over to something to do with
the wool suit trade we have out of Quebec. It was a trade irritant
that became part of a conflict between Canada and the United
States, all over $12 million that the artists, composers and
producers will never ever see''.
Why are we doing this? The only answer that I can come up with
is that it is very typically Liberal and with due respect to the
minister, very typical of the way she does things. If the government
does not do it, it will not get done. If the government does not
interfere, if the government does not mandate, if the government
does not take control, it will not get done.
9056
The mischief that is going to be caused by the blank tape levy I
predict within five years will be very measurable. I hope I am
wrong but unfortunately I know I am right.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to voice my strongest objections to this part of
the bill.
I really would like to urge the minister, who is listening
carefully, and all the other members who in the red book promised
to have free votes, to exercise that free vote, to vote against this bill
unless this part is amended right out of there.
I remember when I was a young man in high school, there was
one time our biology teacher had to leave the classroom. I was
busily working quietly. We had a rule in my generation that
whether the teacher was there or not, there was a lot of silence in
the classroom. It was strictly enforced.
(1835 )
Some of my classmates started talking. Bless his heart,Mr. Harold J. Newlove, my famous biology teacher, came into the
classroom to find the place in general pandemonium. He declared a
penalty. Everyone would stay after school.
I tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I was not involved in that. I
went to Mr. Harold J. Newlove and I said to him: ``Sir, I have to
catch a bus because I am one of these rural students. I have to get
home to help my family with farm chores. I have to get away from
here. Otherwise I need to walk four miles to get home. Can I please
be exempted on the assurance that I was not involved? I am not
guilty''. Mr. Newlove said: ``If I make an exception for you, where
will it end? You will stay''. You do not know how injured I was
because I was innocent.
This is the fundamental premise in this part of this bill which is
false. It assumes that if I go into a store to buy a tape that is blank I
am going to commit a crime with it. What backward thinking that
is. Why would even the Liberals, as they believe in the common
goodness of all people, now suddenly come to the conclusion that
there would be even one person in the country who would break the
copyright laws?
I recognize the harsh reality is that some people do this, but to
pass a law that causes every other person to pay the penalty for the
person who actually did break the law I think is a violation of our
fundamental sense of justice. We should all be outraged, as I was
when I was in high school. That is the first point. We ought not to
be punishing people for crimes they did not commit.
Second, and this I think is just as important, I believe that it is
wrong to, by supposing that someone is going to break the law,
make them pay the penalty in advance.
I read a statistic not too long ago that in the city of Ottawa the
average person drives about 20 kilometres an hour over the speed
limit. Judging by the cabs I have ridden in it is about 100 per cent
over. Instead of going through that costly exercise of having police
persons with radar and all of these other things, why do we not put
a boundary around the city and everyone who comes in we will
charge them all $100, a payment in advance of their speeding fine
which we know that they will commit?
If we did that we could say to them go ahead and speed. Would
we say that? What is the purpose of that speeding law? Is it not to
protect, in the case of vehicles, the lives and the property of all of
us?
If we have a copyright law, the copyright law has the purpose of
protecting the property of the creator of the property. I know of
which I speak. I happen to be a mathematician, a low level one but I
casually sometimes admit to it, and I have some experience with
computing. For a while I used to write computer programs and I
used to then sell them. I used to first give them away because
people liked some of the things I did and I was a generous guy and I
said go ahead and have a copy of that program. Then someone said
why not sell them.
When desktop computers came along, we had these little
diskettes and I could put my programs on to those diskettes. I
realized very quickly that there were some people who were
making illegal copies, even of my stuff. I found out about it
surreptitiously. I accidentally found out about it.
I put a notice in all of my programs that said: ``If you have made
a copy of this program and you did not pay for it to Epp Software,
here is the address where you can send your royalties''. I received
some money in the mail because there were some people who said
they liked that program and wanted to know where they could get
it. Everybody who had a copy of the program said ``copy it and
send Ken Epp 10 bucks and he's happy''.
I got a bit of money, not very much, I will admit that, but I got a
bit of income from that because I asked people to be honest. For the
others, I cannot do that. I do believe in the ownership of property
but I do not believe that I would want to charge a person a penalty
for stealing my property before he does it in the anticipation that he
will. This raises a very very fundamental question of justice.
(1840)
Picture me walking into a store and buying a case of C-60s, the
little cassette tapes. Included in the price is an amount which will
come to about a dollar by the time we are all finished, as my
colleague mentioned, because we will pay GST and HST and BST
and mark-ups and all of this stuff on that original 30 cents to50 cents, which I predict will soon grow to $1 or $2. Once the
9057
government gets its fingers on a source of income it loves to make
it greater. I will have paid on my little case of C-60s maybe $10.
My teenage son will now say to me ``dad can I take one of your
tapes because I want to make a copy of this CD I have to give to my
friend?'' When my kids even suggested they would do that I gave
them a blanket ``no, that is not legal and we do not do that''.
Is it now legal? Can my son now argue with me and say we have
already paid for the copyright on that thing by paying this special
levy on the tapes we bought? Is it now legitimate that this Liberal
government would say it will put a tax on the tape to allow people
to break a law? That is absurd.
That is why I emphatically ask the minister to reconsider, to use
some commons sense and think this through. I urge the members of
that huge majority governing party to think about what they are
doing and to read their red book again. Remember the one that said
more free votes? Here is one. Here is a point.
My point is that they have it in their power to force the minister,
to cajole the minister, to persuade the minister or whatever method
they use, to get this very offensive part out of this bill. One way of
doing that is to simply vote in favour of our member's amendment.
It is the motion that says let us rescind this part that pretaxes
breaking the law or that causes me to pay the penalty for other
people breaking the law. Let us rescind that. If all members vote in
favour of that it will pass and we will have accomplished
something. We in this House will have done the right thing on this
issue. I strongly urge them to do that.
I will be watching because if they do not, then when I go back to
my people during the next election campaign I will have a moral
obligation to tell them that they have had, courtesy of this Liberal
government, this very strange law passed. I think they would even
be ashamed at that. I am sure they will all support it and I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): 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.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 47. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is lost on division. The
division on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 53 and 56.
(Motion No. 47 negatived.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
9058
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: All votes stand deferred until Monday,
March 17, at the end of Government Orders.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, March 17, 1997, at
11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)