EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 18, 1996

.1107

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order.

[English]

I'm sorry for being late. I came from another committee in Centre Block.

Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Chairman, I'll make this just as brief as I can, because I recognize the value of the people in this room. I would like to raise a point of order arising from the meeting last week where we had the chairman of the National Capital Commission in front of us.

Unfortunately our colleague, Mr. Bélanger, is not here today, but I do wish to state that in my judgment, his questions of the chairman of the National Capital Commission with respect to the green belt in Ottawa were very questionable, in that his wife is also the chief of branch management services in the capital planning and real asset management of the National Capital Commission.

Rather than getting into a bunch of detail, because I do respect the people here, I would like to ask for a meeting later this week, before Parliament rises, to discuss this issue of disclosure on the part of people on this committee where they clearly have a conflict of interest.

In this specific instance Mr. Bélanger did not disclose the very clear, apparent and visible conflict of interest when he was asking these questions of his wife's boss.

The Chairman: I don't want to prolong this, but I think for the committee to meet before we leave, there would have to be a motion and you'd have to present it with 48 hours' notice. I don't mind having an informal discussion outside the committee, if you wish, or you may wish to present a motion.

I take the rest of it under advisement. I wouldn't like to state one way or another right away in regard to the content of it, except to say that on the face of it, if I recall, Mr. Bélanger was questioning the witness in regard to certain facts that wouldn't have to do with any conflict of interest. Anyway, I would like to inform myself a little better.

If you wish the committee to meet to discuss this or any other matter separately, then it has to be the subject of either a motion or an informal meeting outside.

Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate the issue was raised in Mr. Bélanger's absence, because he's not here to defend himself, and I'm sure he would.

.1110

I should point out that it's tradition in this place and in places on the Hill that when a point of order is being raised with regard to an individual member, notice is given to that member so he or she can make every effort to be present, and then the motion is not raised until that member can be present at the most appropriate time. So I'm a little disappointed.

With regard to the questions, the questions were asked very openly and, as you stated, were based on facts. I don't think there's a conflict there at all.

Mr. Abbott: Well, I don't want to carry on this discussion, out of respect for the witnesses, but I do want to carry on this discussion before the House rises this Friday.

Mr. Arseneault: You started it.

The Chairman: In that case, Mr. Abbott, you'd have to make a motion that the committee convene again, and you'd have to give 48 hours' notice. Otherwise, unless you made that motion, there would have to be consent of the committee to meet again.

We had this schedule. This was our last meeting of the season. If it's going to be any different, then we have to consider a motion. It needs 48 hours of notice. We don't even know if the House will be sitting then. So there would have to be the consent of the members to change the rules so the committee can meet again.

Mr. Abbott: I have one last point with respect to Mr. Arseneault's point. I take his point. I would suggest that now that I have raised this issue, in fairness to Mr. Bélanger, we should have a meeting.

The Chairman: Well, then I would ask for the consent of the members as to whether they wish to meet to discuss this, because, as I say, the only procedure now is to have a motion to meet. Otherwise there would have to be unanimous consent of the members that we have a meeting to have Mr. Bélanger there and discuss the question.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Mr. Chairman, I recognize that my colleague has a concern. As Mr. Arseneault has said, though, the normal etiquette wasn't followed. I think Mr. Abbott, my colleague opposite, should follow that normal process, the tradition around here, and then take it from there. That hasn't been done to start things off, and I think now that he's aware of it, that's how we should proceed.

The Chairman: Anyway, Mr. Abbott, the choices are very clear. If the members give unanimous consent to meet again on this issue or any other issue, that's their privilege. If they don't, then there will have to be a motion for the committee to meet on this specific subject, and they will require 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Abbott: Is there unanimous consent?

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: Given that this is on the record now, Mr. Abbott, in fairness, it would be good if you raised it with Mr. Bélanger so he can clear it, and I'll certainly look at the transcripts as well.

I would like to open the meeting now and the contents we're faced with today. I should point out this is a technical briefing by the Department of Canadian Heritage. When members asked me to have experts from the Ministry of Canadian Heritage be convened to discuss the bill, the idea was that they would give us a briefing on the contents of the bill.

You should appreciate, then - and I think this point should be made at the outset - that they are not here to give the political reasons for why this section or that section was put in, withdrawn, changed from the original version or whatever. That is not their mandate here. Their mandate is to answer technical questions in regard to the contents of the act and to explain to us in the best way they can how the act is framed and what are the key provisions of it so we can all be better informed when we receive briefs during the summer.

So I would like to introduce the members before you. I'll ask Mrs. Susan Katz to introduce her colleagues. Perhaps that would be the best way.

.1115

Ms Susan Katz (Acting Director General, Cultural Industries, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to be here today.

The colleagues with me today are Elizabeth Britt, counsel with the Department of Justice; Danielle Bouvet, director of intellectual property from the Department of Industry; David Tobin, director general of corporate governance at Industry Canada; René Bouchard, acting director of copyright policy at Canadian Heritage; and Jeff Richstone, counsel with the Department of Justice.

The Chairman: The floor goes to whoever wants to start in your group, please.

Ms Katz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have prepared a slide presentation for you. I will begin the presentation and then approximately at the halfway mark I will ask my colleague, Danielle Bouvet, to pick up the presentation and carry it on from there.

Just by way of perhaps setting the context, before we get into an overview of Bill C-32, I'd just like to make a few brief remarks. Canada's Copyright Act was originally passed in 1924, and indeed was not updated until 1988. At that time, amendments that we more familiarly refer to as phase one of copyright revision were brought to the act.

The amendments brought to the act in 1988 included the protection of computer programs, the extension of moral rights, the inclusion of measures to encourage the collective administration of copyright, the replacement of the Copyright Appeal Board with the Copyright Board, and finally the repeal of statutory royalties for the reproduction of sound recordings. Royalties for the reproduction of sound recordings as of 1988 may now be set contractually by the copyright owner rather than be set out by statute.

Between 1988 and 1994, a number of other amendments were brought to the act. The timing of those amendments was linked to Canada signing a number of important international trade agreements - the free trade agreement with the United States, the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico, and finally with the World Trade Organization. So between 1988 and 1994 a number of consequential amendments were made to the act in order to bring us into line with international treaties that Canada had signed during that period.

I'd now like to move on to the overview of Bill C-32.

The Chairman: Ms Katz, may I interrupt you for a minute? I should have asked you this at the start. I know we've been delayed by ten minutes. How long will your presentation withMadame Bouvet take, so that we can judge the time for questions by the members? I'm sure members are going to very interested in asking questions.

Ms Katz: Our intention was to try to limit it to about twenty minutes.

The Chairman: That's great, thank you.

Ms Katz: On page one of the presentation, then, is a brief listing of the principal amendments proposed in Bill C-32: the introduction of rights for performers, producers of sound recordings, and broadcasting organizations; the creation of new exceptions for educational institutions, heritage institutions, and persons with perceptual disabilities; measures to protect exclusive distributors of books in Canada against parallel importation of their books; the introduction of a private copying machine for sound recordings; improved remedies for all rights holders; and finally measures to modernize the act.

I would like to proceed with a brief description of each of these principal amendments.

The first package of amendments refers to what we call ``neighbouring rights''. Neighbouring rights refer to the recognition of the rights for performers for the performance of their works, rights for producers of sound recordings for their sound recordings, and rights for broadcasting organizations for their communication signals.

.1120

In introducing rights for performers, producers and broadcasters, Canada will bring its copyright legislation into line with 50 other countries who are members of the Rome convention. The rights of performers and producers of sound recordings will entitle performers and producers of sound recordings to royalty payments for the use of their sound recordings for public performance or broadcast. That would be the use of sound recordings on the radio and in bars, restaurants, and sports arenas.

At the present time, under the current law, only authors of musical works - that is to say, composers and lyricists - are remunerated for the use of their musical works when they are performed in public or are broadcast. Performers and producers rights will therefore extend these rights to performers and producers.

In introducing these measures, Canadian performers and producers will be entitled to receive royalties when their sound recordings are performed or broadcast not only in Canada but also in countries that are members of the Rome convention. In addition, the Minister of Industry would also have the discretion under the act to extend this protection to other countries.

Within the proposed regime, the royalties would be split equally between performers and producers. The term of protection for the works would be 50 years. The tariffs would be set by the Copyright Board after considering arguments presented before it. Royalties would be paid to collective societies representing eligible members.

Finally, special and transitional measures have been provided for radio broadcasters. For all private radio stations, the royalty in perpetuity on the first $1.25 million of annual advertising revenues will be $100 per year. The royalty payable on advertising revenues over $1.25 million will be phased in gradually.

Community radio stations will benefit from a preferential rate of $100 per year in perpetuity. Finally, public stations would pay a tariff, which would also be phased in over five years.

As I mentioned just a few moments ago, neighbouring rights refer not only to the rights of performers and producers, but also the rights of broadcasters in their communication signal. I would like to clarify that in discussing communication signals, we have to make the distinction between the role of a broadcaster as a programmer, as a producer of programming, and a broadcaster as a distributor, as an organization that communicates to its public via a communication signal.

Broadcasters as producers of programs are recognized to hold copyright in the programs they produce. They can sell those programs for use on other networks or other television stations, as any other copyright owner. What we're talking about here is not broadcasters as creators and owners of programming, we are talking about broadcasters as owners of a communication signal.

A communication signal refers to the transmission of sounds or sounds and images by Hertzian waves. That simply refers to signals communicated through the air, otherwise known as ``wireless transmission''.

The amendments in Bill C-32 will offer broadcasters control over their communication signal. It will enable them to authorize another broadcaster to simultaneously retransmit those signals to the public.

An important point is that the right only applies to communication signals transmitted over the air. It does not apply for signals retransmitted by cable.

The second major package of amendments relates to exceptions. An exception is an act that is permitted by law and does not infringe copyright. Therefore no authorization by the right holder is necessary in order to use the protected material.

The current Copyright Act already recognizes certain exceptions. Individuals who copy a part of a work for private study and research can avail themselves under the act of what's known as the ``fair dealing defence''.

.1125

Another exception currently in the act is that the public performance of a musical work for a religious, educational, or charitable purpose may be undertaken by a religious, educational, or charitable organization without a requirement for authorization from the copyright owner.

In Bill C-32 we are proposing new exceptions that would apply to non-profit educational institutions and non-profit heritage institutions, such as libraries, museums, and archives, and, finally, exceptions for persons with perceptual disabilities.

I might add that similar exceptions may be found in the legislation of other countries.

I will just provide a few examples with regard to non-profit educational institutions.

A student or an instructor could copy onto a flip chart or a blackboard a portion of a work - a poem, for example, an extract from a literary work - and would not require authority of the copyright owner or indeed be obliged to pay the copyright owner for using the extract of that work.

Similarly, a teacher could copy a portion of a literary work, or indeed a visual work, onto a transparency and use it on an overhead projector in a classroom and that would be covered by the exception as well.

An important distinction here is that the proviso or the condition on the exception would be that the exception would apply unless commercially available substitutes exist.

The following acts are permitted on the premises of an educational institution if done for an educational training purpose: the live performance of a musical or a dramatic work by students, the playing of a sound recording, and viewing or listening to television or radio broadcasts at the time of broadcast.

A proviso on these exceptions is that the audience must consist primarily of students or teachers or individuals directly responsible for setting curriculum.

I would draw your attention to a final exception with regard to educational institutions. They would be permitted to reproduce and use news and commentary programs from radio and television broadcasts provided that they're for an educational use. Those copies may be retained on the premises for one year.

For other kinds of programming that a teacher might wish to use, a copy could be made and examined for up to 30 days to determine whether or not it's going to be used in the curriculum. If it is to be used in the curriculum, then the copy could be used by the instructor.

At the expiration of each of these prescribed periods, however, the educational institution must either destroy the copy or pay a tariff, which would be set by the board.

Heritage institutions, libraries, archives, and museums would be permitted to make a copy of a published or unpublished work, either for themselves or another institution, if it's required in order to maintain or manage the collection of that institution.

Another example of an exception for a heritage institution is that these institutions would not be held liable for photocopying that is done on their premises as long as an appropriate copyright notice has been posted.

Finally, a person would be permitted to make a single copy of a dramatic, musical, or literary work in an alternate format in order to meet the needs of a person with a perceptual disability, as long as that work is not already commercially available in that alternate format. In the event that there was a desire to create more than one copy, the Copyright Board would set a tariff.

Parallel importation of books is the third major initiative in Bill C-32. Parallel importation occurs when a bookstore, wholesaler, or institutional purchaser purchases books or imports books from a source other than the exclusive distributor.

.1130

Authors have access to remedies under the current Copyright Act in order to prevent parallel importation. Exclusive book distributors, however, do not. In organizing their activities in the Canadian market, book distributors negotiate and pay for exclusive market rights to handle the distribution of books in Canada. The intention of the amendments in Bill C-32 is therefore to ensure that those right holders, exclusive distributors, have access to remedies under the act in order to protect their market.

Exclusive distributors will therefore have access to the remedies under the act, such as seizure, injunction, damages, or detention at the border. Access to these remedies, however, is balanced by two very important criteria. One is that the exclusive distributor must have provided notice to an importer that there is an exclusive distributor for that book in Canada. Secondly, the exclusive distributor must provide an acceptable standard of service, and that standard of service would be set out in the regulations.

A final item I would mention is that the parallel importation provisions also contain a measure to discourage what we've referred to as strategic buying of books. As the bill moves through Parliament, there could be importers who would use this opportunity to build up inventories in Canada, with the expectation that once the bill receives royal assent that kind of importation could no longer occur. The bill anticipates that and provides for limited retroactivity.

[Translation]

I would therefore invite my colleague Danielle Bouvet to take the floor.

Ms Danielle Bouvet (Director, Copyright, Department of Industry): The fourth very important element of this bill deals with private copying.

What do we mean by private copying? This is essentially the act of reproduction which, in the bill, means that for any musical works, performances of a musical works or sound recordings, royalties could be collected when copies are made for personal use.

Why are we introducing a private copying regime? It is currently impossible to sanction these reproductions, and in order to allow creators to collect royalties for the reproduction for personal use, the legislator is introducing this regime. Its purpose is therefore to compensate performers for the private use of their works.

With regard to the detailed measures, this is a regime which institutes a levy on all digital and analog blank audio media at the level of importer and manufacturer to compensate eligible authors of musical works, producers of sound recordings and performers.

Collective societies will be called upon to file tariff proposals with the Copyright Board. Ultimately, that Board will set the applicable tariff in accordance with the audiences drawn.

Any interested party, in fact anyone in terms of the law, can appear before the Copyright Board to argue their case. The first tariff will have a maximum duration of two years.

The proceeds from the levy will be distributed among the three groups, composers, performers and producers of sound recordings, in proportions set by the Copyright Board.

Beneficiaries of this regime are the following. With regard to musical works, we're talking about all the authors of countries who are members of the Berne Convention, which includes approximately 100 countries throughout the world. We're also talking about a regime that will benefit Canadian producers of sound recordings as well as Canadian performers.

The Minister of Industry will have the discretion to extend benefits of this regime to countries that will offer similar advantages, or in some cases lesser advantages, on a reciprocal basis.

Certain organizations representing individuals with perceptual disability may be exempted from the application of this regime.

.1135

Manufacturers and importers of cassettes to be exported will also be exempted from this regime. The creation of the regime will allow any consumer to reproduce sound recordings for personal use while benefiting from an exemption.

Another very important aspect of this bill concerns civil remedies. I will discuss three aspects of civil remedies.

The first deals with statutory damages. Under this regime, where infringement of copyright is proven, a plaintiff may choose to ask that the damages be determined within a range set out in the Act. The range or rule established will be an amount that can vary between $500 and $20,000. The court can also reduce that amount to a minimum of $200 in cases where the defendant can prove that he was unaware of the infringement of copyright.

Another very important element is what we call wide injunction. An example of the application of this kind of injunction would be where a collective society such as SOCAN, which is a very large one in Canada, realizes that a public establishment such as a restaurant is presenting musical works without the appropriate licence. SOCAN can go to court and demand for an injunction to cover not only the musical works heard or played by the restaurant, but the entire SOCAN repertory. This injunction would allow the plaintiff to have a very effective remedy which would mean that the public establishment could not play any music.

Another very important element of this regime concerns the summary procedures included in this bill. In the future, a plaintiff will be able to proceed by ex parte petition rather than by subpoena. The purpose of this measure is to accelerate the process and reduce the costs associated with the administration of justice.

For example, instead of a subpoena which is followed by an appearance, defence, etc., there would be an ex parte petition, and after a hearing date is set by the court, this would enable the parties to be heard more quickly.

With all these measures it will be easier to uphold the rights recognized to the various colleges.

Another measure in this bill concerns rental rights. When NAFTA was implemented, rental rights had been granted to sound recording producers but not to the authors of musical works, nor to performers' recorded performances.

The bill seeks to extend rental rights which were conferred on sound recording producers to authors of musical works and performers.

Another very important element deals with residuals. It may be worthwhile to explain this provision with an example. For instance, let us say an artist performs in a cinematographic work and signs a contract with a film producer which provides for sums of money to be paid to him for reproductions, public performances, such as those in a cinema, or for public communication by telecommunications at a later date.

The producer with whom this contract is signed transfers his rights to a third party and the performer ends up in a situation where his rights are no longer upheld. This provision will allow the performer to be paid by any subsequent transferee in accordance with the arrangements contained in the original agreement.

.1140

Another very important aspect of the bill is the duration of protection for unpublished works. Up until now, the duration of protection for such works was unlimited. The current bill will limit the duration of this protection to 50 years from the date of publication. As years go by, works covered by the same duration of protection will have 50 years of protection.

A further important element of the bill deals with the powers given to the Governor-in- Council. Up until now, the Governor-in-Council was empowered to issue retransmission criteria to the Copyright Board. This power will heretofore be applicable to the entire legislation. The Governor-in-Council will be empowered to issue criteria regarding all rights conferred by law.

The possibility of appeal to Cabinet is also repealed. This possibility was in effect on retransmission and the bill abolishes this appeal to Cabinet.

One final element which is not in the slide presentation that we distributed and that is quite important is modernization of the legislation or its review. A provision of the legislation provides for a review in five years.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Before we go on to questions, I would like to tell members of the committee that we have two housekeeping matters that must be settled today.

[English]

which are very important. We have to talk about the list of people who are going to be invited for briefs. Then we have to agree on a deadline for the briefs to come in. These are two important items of business that must concluded before we close up. So I would really ask the members if you can stay until we have concluded these two items, please.

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize. I must be leaving.

The Chairman: I understand. You told me that. That's fine.

But we have to have a quorum. It's essential.

I will now open the meeting to questions. Since the member for the official opposition is on the phone, we will go to Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Abbott: I'll try to ask some quick questions.

First, on the fact that this is going to be going before the Copyright Board, and taking a look at the fact that their estimates have gone from $999,000 to $965,000 to $943,000, in other words the allocation of resources for the Copyright Board over the last three fiscal periods has been declining, and considering they have only nine people for human resources, is it envisioned that with this change there will have to be a further allocation of funds for the Copyright Board, and will the full-time equivalents have to be increased?

Ms Katz: I'm not anticipating there would be a requirement for increased resources. The Copyright Board or the administration of the act is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, so my colleague David Tobin might have something to add.

Mr. David Tobin (Director General, Corporate Governance, Department of Industry): So far nothing has been raised about the board's ability, or lack of it, to handle the matters we refer to them. I suppose it's an issue that might have to be looked at at some point, but certainly that question hasn't been raised yet.

Mr. Abbott: With all due respect, if we're handing them further work to do and they have a declining dollar budget and a static number of members on the board, it seems logical to me that we should be looking at that as a dollar item and this committee indeed should know the answer to that question.

Mr. Tobin: Of course in some of the cases here there are provisions where the rates that would be determined by the board would not have to be set on an annual basis. For example, on the terms of home taping the bill specifically says the first rate would be set for a period of two years. So it may be a question of managing the types of hearings the board... I'm not fully conversant with the mechanics of the day-to-day work of the boards, but it may be a question of spacing out their work, spacing out their hearings, and managing it all in a way that is compatible with the resources they have before them now. But it's certainly something we can discuss with the board and at the committee's pleasure return here.

Mr. Abbott: It would be useful for us to know.

.1145

As for the act itself, I understand there is a transfer-of-medium exception extended to computer software users, yet that exception is not extended to radio and TV broadcasters. They very commonly do load music and programming onto their hard drives for rebroadcast. Why would they not have the same exception as that of corporations and individuals outside that industry?

Ms Katz: I guess a general statement on the exceptions would be that, as for the framework for the exceptions, if we go back to those now in the act and those that have been proposed in Bill C-32, I would guess that there are two general principles that emerge from there, which I hope would answer your questions.

One is that the fair-dealing exception to which I referred makes reference to the use of a work for private study or research. The second general principle is that the exceptions provided for in the act are provided with regard to public, heritage, or educational institutions, or indeed charitable or fraternal organizations.

The exception to which you referred, the transfer of medium, as I understand it, is software for private use. This means an individual making a back-up copy for private and personal use. On the basis of that, I think that's consistent with the principles in the act now.

Mr. Abbott: So there is, within this particular segment, the same assumption of payment to be levied as when a person buys a CD for his or her own personal use and then transfers it to a cassette tape to play in their own car for their own personal use. Again, there is the assumption that there should be some funds realized for the artist because somebody has chosen to change the medium.

In other words, we have a parallel over here between the broadcasters and personal use whereby there is going to be a pick-up of revenue, in my judgment, for no particular reason, other than the fact that it's there and that it will be picked up.

Ms Katz: If I can address the question with regard to the private copying of musical works, a number of studies have been undertaken over the years, providing evidence to the effect that a private copying of musical works onto cassette or other blank recording media does in fact have an impact on the retail sales of sound recordings. So in making that private copy, there is in fact a displacement of sale. Copies are made and exchanged among friends.

The Copyright Board, however, in establishing the levy for the private copying regime, based on the evidence presented before it, would take into account copying that does in fact display sales and copying that does not; therefore, the tariff would attempt to reflect the extent of copying and the reasons for copying and then the impact back onto retail sales and whether or not retail sales have in fact been displaced.

Mr. Abbott: Has there been any calculation of the cost to small radio and television broadcasters with respect to ephemeral rights? What I am thinking of here is a situation whereby you would have syndicated or network programming that the small radio or television broadcaster would be picking up either because of time zone scheduling or to use later for scheduling differences. Have there been any calculations of what that incidental cost will be?

In other words, here's what I'm driving at. In the first instance, I'm suggesting that with respect to the way the legislation is currently written, radio and TV broadcasters, by changing or transferring the medium, will be caught. People who choose to transfer medium for their own personal use from say disc to tape to put into their car will be caught. Now we have a situation under ephemeral rights where small radio and television broadcasters will also be caught.

.1150

I live in a very small community where we have the top ten or the country hoedown or whatever it is that is picked up. That is a national broadcast. Will there not be a kind of incidental pick-up of revenue that's really not fair to the small television or radio broadcaster with this issue of ephemeral rights?

Ms Katz: On the question of ephemeral recordings made by broadcasting organizations, there are indeed agreements in place. Broadcasting organizations have negotiated contracts with copyright owners, contracts that assess or set or establish a value for those ephemeral recordings. They're included in a much broader contract that covers a variety of different kinds of recordings that might be made.

In terms of the copyright owners, what we're providing for in Bill C-32 is simply an acknowledgement, which the Supreme Court made a number of years ago, that an ephemeral recording is indeed a recording that should be subject to payment. Bill C-32 confirms that and is basically saying to copyright owners and to collectives that they should negotiate a reasonable rate as they have negotiated contracts for other uses.

I think Mr. Tobin would like to add something.

Mr. Tobin: It's just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The act doesn't change anything with respect to ephemeral rights or exceptions or whichever term you want to use. The act is quite silent on it. There's nothing in it that changes the law, so in terms of what's going on right now, one would assume it's the status quo that prevails.

Mr. Abbott: Thank you.

That leads directly to my next question. With respect to ephemeral rights or exceptions and the fair use of permitting transfer of medium, my understanding is that there are some fairly broad exceptions in U.S. copyright law. Is that correct?

Ms Katz: Yes, there is an exception in U.S. copyright law.

Mr. Abbott: I guess the question then is why the scheme of strict statutory damages and wide injunctive relief, which seems to be a copy of what they're doing in the U.S., has been applied. In other words, they have the exceptions in their legislation and they have teeth, taking into account that they have those exceptions. We don't have the exceptions, but we have the teeth. Do you understand my analogy?

[Translation]

Ms Bouvet: A very important distinction between Canada and the United States is that Canadian authors and producers can come together in collective societies to provide the access that broadcasters need.

In the United States, the tendency is not to create collective societies that will offer their entire repertoire to users. In Canada, this is a very frequent phenomenon and the broadcaster has no access problems; there is a problem of payment instead. If he wants to pay, he will never be prosecuted for any kind of infringement of the Copyright Act associated with reproduction.

So the problem is different in the United States. In Canada, authors have established collective societies and are prepared to offer access to the works, and any broadcaster who wants to pay the amount charged to reproduce the work can simply call the collective society and get access to the works. That way, he will avoid the problems of wide injunction and statutory damages.

.1155

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'll turn to Mr. Leroux and Mr. O'Brien, and then I'll come back to you, Mr. Hanrahan.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Thank you for coming this morning to help us review this bill.

I wanted to make a suggestion to this Committee and to our witnesses on how we could move ahead with this bill. It seems to me that we could ask all sorts of questions. We could proceed that way and perhaps even meet again on Thursday.

I would have preferred that we first look at the definitions so that we are all clear on what the expressions mean and their implication.

I also would have liked to deal with each of the sections on neighbouring rights and residuals so that we could understand how the conventions and the provisions affect all countries, and that we talk about all of the exceptions in this bill, because they are a major part of it. It has increased to 12 pages from two.

I would have liked to review the scope of the exceptions. This bill is about copyright, but given the number of exceptions, you must wonder whether authors really do have any rights.

I would like to deal with it in a very rational manner, if my colleagues don't mind. Even if we had to come back Thursday, Mr. Chairman, I would like us to go back to the beginning and discuss the definitions to make sure everyone understands the same thing.

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, I think everything will become much clearer once the discussion starts. The purpose of today's meeting is to get an overview of the bill before we hear witnesses and also to get an idea of the scope of the bill and of its underlying principles. We don't have to go into details, which we will obviously do during a detailed study of it when we meet for several weeks to study the bill from start to finish.

Mr. Leroux: I see. What we're doing today is just an overview. We could go ahead with that, but I think that before we hear witnesses, we should see whether everyone, including the drafters, agree on the definitions in the bill and on their scope.

It is not a matter of pursuing a detailed study of the bill, but rather to make sure we are all talking about the same thing when we hear witnesses. The witnesses can then give us their interpretation and tell us what they think of the content of the bill. You know that we will hear a lot of witnesses. There will be numerous discussions and I think it would be good if this committee had a discussion with the legislator on the definitions and their scope, as well as on the intent of the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, you have made your suggestion. We will meet later to discuss witnesses, deadlines, etc. At that point, we can raise the matter with our colleagues.

[English]

Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I'm just wondering if we could do that in the fall, because after today we're going to have three months away from the table and we're going to lose it all.

The Chairman: What I suggest is that maybe we should carry on with the questions now, and then when we meet to discuss our internal business we will look at Mr. Leroux's suggestion.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux, you have some questions?

Mr. Leroux: I don't want to talk about the entire bill, because I think it is important that we agree on the basic definitions. I am just going to stick with the exceptions.

I would like to know why there are so many exceptions in a copyright act, when we know full well that agreements already exist. The Quebec government has signed some, as had the federal government.

The current management philosophy is to let organizations work things out among themselves. Everywhere, in every department, people are being told to work things out among themselves. They are able to represent themselves. Why not let those who want exceptions go to organizations that represent authors to negotiate those exceptions rather than present a bill which, bang!, regulates all that?

.1200

I have the feeling we are protecting government institutions and sectors that are capable of negotiating. Some of the sectors mentioned in the exceptions already have agreements.

This bill just says that an institution which pays its phone bill, rent, taxes, etc., should get an exemption when it comes to copyright, and fair remuneration for authors.

Does this bill say that Bell Canada could get an exemption, as could an electrical company, a school board, a museum, a library, etc.? Would anyone want those organizations to get an exemption? Authors cannot even bill those organizations to get fair pay for their creations. They do not have any rights. I don't understand why we're doing that.

Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, you have to think that...

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I would like the witnesses to answer rather than the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Arseneault: I don't think an official should answer a question that starts with "why?". It is a matter of policy.

The Chairman: Before you arrived, I said very clearly, and I had agreed with Ms Katz and the others here today, that this was a technical briefing on this bill.

I will let the witnesses answer as they will, but I must say very clearly that I had discussed this with our guests. In fact, I had already told you that this was a technical briefing. Officials do not make any decisions on departmental policies. It is up to the minister to do so, who, once we have invited her, will tell us why she decided to do something or make exceptions. The officials' role is to find out what could constitute an exception to the bill, according to their mandate.

Mr. Leroux: Let me rephrase my question. What led you to list so many exceptions?

Ms Katz: We followed the principle that already exists in the Copyright Act: the principles of personal use or private use for research purposes or use of the works by public institutions, such as teaching institutions or heritage institutions.

You referred to existing agreements. I presume this committee's public hearings will give you the opportunity to see whether the proposed exceptions in the bill will have an impact on those agreements.

Mr. Leroux: Since this is a technical briefing, I would like to talk about neighbouring rights. Broadcasters will have to pay a $100 in neighbouring rights on the first $1,250,000 of advertizing revenue. How did you arrive at $1,250,000?

Ms Katz: It was a Cabinet decision.

Mr. Leroux: If I'm not mistaken, this bill provides for a legislative review in five years. In five years, the bill will be re-examined. There is a provision for that in the act and that does not depend on any government, unless the bill is amended.

.1205

It's the first time such a provision is being included in this act. It was very difficult to reopen it. Why was it reviewed?

Mrs. Bouvet: First of all, there were a number of precedents. A number of acts passed in the last few years contained provisions obliging the government to review the act within a certain time frame. For instance, there was the Bankruptcy Act, which contained a provision for a review in three years.

Mr. Tobin: That was done with the Lobbyist Registration Act and with the CBCA.

Ms Bouvet: Then, the Patent Act was amended in 1993 and provides for a review in 1997.

There are a number of precedents. During phase two, we already realized we could not make several changes that were already in the air. We decided to table what we had, which we had been discussing for a long time and deserved to be tabled.

But we are surrounded by the information highway and can already see that a number of issues might require amendments. By inserting such a provision into the legislation, we are obliging the current or the next government to review the Act in five years, which does not stop it from doing so earlier if necessary. However, in five years, it will have to review it.

Mr. Leroux: When will the neighbouring rights come into effect, and when will the legislative provisions be enforced? They don't exist right now so this is a first.

Courts will have to invent everything themselves and decide how to enforce it. Obviously, you can use examples from other countries, but is there any timeframe for the enforcement of this Act? Once it is assented to, will it come into effect immediately or some time thereafter?

Ms Bouvet: First of all, it is interesting to note that the bill will not invent all that much, because the Copyright Board has already been asked to set the rates in a number of other areas, so it already has some experience with this. Over the past few years, the Board was called upon to set rates on several other projects.

As for the timeframe, the Act is clear. From section 83 onward, which deal with private copying, it says that the management firms must suggest a range of rates at the latest by the 31st of March preceding the end date of the approved tariff. In this case, since it is brand new, the firms will have to set it at the latest by March 31 following the coming into force of the legislation.

The Act provides for an entire process. It is well-known and the Copyright Board is familiar with it. It was based on the Act's existing parameters, so that once the rates are published in the Gazette, in the 60 days following their publication, parties will be invited to express their concerns and make their claiMs

The Copyright Board will review the proposed rates as soon as possible. It will set its rates based on proposed measures or criteria.

For instance, paragraphs 83(8) and 83(9) set out parameters for the Copyright Board. At the end of the day, the process will be similar to the one it currently uses to set many other rates.

Mr. Leroux: But there is a difference.

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, can I come back to you later on, please?

Mr. Leroux: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien: I'd like to thank the witnesses for that very good overview of the bill. I appreciate that.

Just on Mr. Leroux's point about the mandatory review, the chair and I and one of the researchers just last year went through a mandatory review of CEPA in some great detail, so I personally think it's an excellent idea to build these kinds of reviews into various pieces of legislation. I'm pleased that's a feature here.

.1210

I have just two or three technical questions. We'll try to stay away from the political questions for another day.

On page nine of the overview, on private copying, it makes reference to the board setting the tariff on the blank audio taping that Mr. Abbot raised earlier. What is the level set by other countries? Is there any thought to a recommended minimum that we could recommend to the board?

Mr. Tobin: The only thing I can say is that there is a provision in the act that the board should take into account the amounts payable under comparable laws in other countries. So there is a direction in the proposed amendments that would ask the board to take that into consideration. It stops short of saying what it shall be, but it does ask the board to take into account what other countries pay.

Mr. O'Brien: What's the average of other comparable nations?

Ms Bouvet: It has been mentioned that 37¢ is the average, but I think the Copyright Board will have to do its own homework because it could depend on how wide the repertoire is. In France, for example, the repertoire is maybe larger than what we have here. At this point, the home copying regime applies only to Canadian performers and producers, for example, so we're talking about a smaller repertoire than in France.

The Copyright Board will have to look at all these considerations and set the tariffs in light of the evidence presented before it.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you. I hope we will at least meet or exceed that average, but I'm not on the Copyright Board.

If you could just look at pages five and six of your overview, in a former life I was a teacher for a number of years, so I'm pretty sensitive to what you're recommending there. Are you deliberately stopping short of saying that teachers can reproduce parts of written works for distribution to students, as opposed to transparencies? In other words, could one of us reproduce part of a novel and distribute it to students for use in the class?

Ms Bouvet: Are you referring to the first exception we have on page five? Are you talking about reproduction onto a dry-erase board?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. It seems that you're talking strictly about dry-erase boards, flip charts or transparencies - in other words, overheads. But it doesn't make reference to the ability of a teacher to reproduce part of a written work so students can have their own copies for analysis, which has commonly been done with some trepidation over the years,

Ms Katz: That would not be covered.

Mr. O'Brien: That wouldn't be allowed. That's interesting. Can I have a rationale for why it's not in there?

Ms Bouvet: We had to take into account both the need for the user to have access and what the creators could give in terms of access. We felt it was a good compromise between those two needs. Because these exemptions have been discussed or on the table since 1987, we didn't want to create a completely new set of exemptions. We felt there was a need to try to stick with what has been promised over the past 10 years and avoid major changes that might interfere with existing contracts, and so on.

.1215

Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate that. So if the existing situation continues, this exception is in place now.

Ms Bouvet: I think it's fair to say it might be covered by some contracts. It's going to be interesting to hear what future witnesses say about that. It's certainly an exemption that has been promised for the past ten years. In light of that promise, the government felt that it was a good compromise.

Mr. Tobin: I would say it doesn't continue the existing situation, but it may clarify the existing situation. The level of clarity in the bill right now is not in the act at this point.

Mr. O'Brien: It's certainly an improvement, Mr. Chairman. It's a level of compromise if a teacher can make a transparency reproduction.

I have one other technical question. On page 6 it talks about reproducing other types of television programs to examine for up to 30 days to decide whether or not to use them. The news reproductions are limited to a year. If we decide we want to keep them and use them, is the time period still a year?

Ms Bouvet: No. I think the one-year grace period is only with respect to news and news commentary prograMs When we're talking about any other programming, if you decide after30 days to keep it, you have to pay for the reproduction and the public performance of that TV program.

Mr. O'Brien: All right, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Just before I start the next round of questions, it's just after 12:15. I know that some members have a meeting at one o'clock. I'm one of them. Would we be able to finish the questioning by12:45 so we can do internal business? There are three important items to discuss.

If that's okay with members, I shall ask you to be brief so we can give everybody a chance. I have on my list Mr. Hanrahan and Mrs. Phinney. Is that right? No. Are there any other members who wish to speak?

Mr. Arseneault: I'll pass, Mr. Chairman, to give the opposition a little more time.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanrahan.

Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): I don't want to get into major background discussions on this, but having looked through much of this material, the conflict seems to be over the neighbouring rights issue more than some of the others.

We're hearing from the radio stations that this is going to bankrupt many of them and cost them a fortune. On the other hand, the artists are saying this is their right and it is not going to affect the radio stations. There are various arguments.

I want to know whether anyone anywhere in the government has done an economic impact study on the two, because when the witnesses come before us they're obviously going to be very subjective in their interpretation of the effect of this bill. Have you looked at that, and can we have access to it if you have?

Ms Katz: A piece of work was done a couple of years ago by two academics by the name of Donner and Lazar. It was a fairly important piece of work that was commissioned by the department to look at the question of neighbouring rights and, more specifically, broadcasters.

.1220

With respect to the comments you made about the concerns of broadcasters and the rebuttal from the artistic community, I think the music industry is very sensitive to the financial situation of the broadcasting industry. It has certainly, in a number of public statements, acknowledged the need for preferential treatment for small stations. Indeed, the structure of the regime as set out in the bill acknowledges the financial situation of small stations. In fact, 65% of private radio stations would pay only the $100 tariff.

Mr. Hanrahan: So some study has been done in this area?

Ms Katz: Yes, and indeed when the Copyright Board holds its hearings that would be the moment at which the Copyright Board, in considering the evidence of both broadcasters and the music industry, would come to a determination of what is a fair and reasonable tariff on the basis of argumentation provided by the broadcasters.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm trying to get back to where you were coming from in terms of definitions. Where are we starting from here? Has any work been done? Are we just reinventing the wheel from both sides of the wagon? Any literature that you can give this committee would be greatly appreciated.

The Chairman: Is it possible, Ms Katz, for this report to be made available to the members?

Ms Katz: Yes, of course. I'd be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Maybe you could circulate a copy to the clerk so she will make sure that the members will get it.

Ms Katz: Yes, I will do that.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any other material of that kind that you might have would be appreciated.

Mr. Abbott: On the so-called SOCAN non-derogation clause in proposed section 90, is it safe to assume unequivocally that in the event that this legislation is passed additional fees will be taken from broadcasters?

Ms Katz: I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Mr. Abbott: Under neighbouring rights... In other words, if broadcasters currently are paying, I believe, 0.4¢ more than their counterparts in the U.S. under copyright - I believe the rate is 3.2¢ versus 2.8¢ - what I'm concerned about and would like clarification of is, because of proposed section 90, are we then assuming that if neighbouring rights are brought in the broadcasters will be going even further behind than they presently are?

Ms Katz: The Copyright Board would be setting the neighbouring rights tariff based on evidence presented to it. It would be a separate ruling, a separate decision of the board. It would be a neighbouring rights tariff in addition to what we call the SOCAN tariff. So it is a separate procedure involved in coming to and establishing that tariff.

Mr. Abbott: We've had a discussion in a private briefing about my expectation that under NAFTA and the cultural exemptions and so on we're going to have some kind of a fight with the Americans. For clarification, could you tell me if American performers who end up being signed to or distributed by Canadian record companies, including Canadian subsidiaries of foreign multinationals, will qualify for neighbouring rights? If so, how much money is expected to flow into the U.S. because of this?

.1225

Ms Bouvet: Could you please repeat the question?

Mr. Abbott: If an American performer is signed to or distributed by Canadian record companies, including Canadian subsidiaries of foreign multinationals, would those record companies and that American performer qualify for neighbouring rights? If so, has any study been done on how many dollars are going to be taken from Canadian broadcasters and sent to American performers - without any reciprocation, I might add?

Ms Katz: Before answering the question, and I invite my colleagues from Industry to assist me, you made reference to a foreign national performer being signed or distributed by a multinational in Canada -

Mr. Abbott: Or a Canadian record company. Let's visualize something. Let's assume that the best happens, that an American performer will not be able to have access to neighbouring rights under the legislation and that if any challenges come from the U.S., we will be able to rebuff them. Let's work on that assumption. Then would they not have a way around it in order to gain neighbouring rights by simply signing with a Canadian distribution or record company? Would that foreign national not then have access to the money being extracted from the Canadian broadcaster under neighbouring rights without any reciprocity?

Ms Katz: The whole thing hinges on where the sound recording is fixed. To simply sign an artist isn't sufficient. The sound recording must be made in Canada. In the example you give, the sound recording would have to be fixed in Canada.

Mr. Abbott: This opens up something very interesting. Wouldn't this be terrific for sound studios in Canada? The American artist, having no other claim or connection to Canada whatsoever, now comes to Canada, does his recording in a Canadian studio, signs a contract with a Canadian record company and then also has access to any plays that are done under the Rome convention. That's going to be very good for our recording studios, isn't it?

Mr. Arseneault: It creates work.

Mr. Abbott: Was that taken into account? It's just a thought off the top of my head.

Mr. René Bouchard (Acting Director, Copyright Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): The criteria that are used are the criteria under the Rome Convention. We adhere to Rome. Those are the criteria taken into account.

The side effect is that yes, it could be expected that some artists will decide to sign with Canadian companies and will come here and fix the album here. Therefore it would create some work for the recording studios and create some jobs.

Mr. Abbott: A make-work bill, job creation - I love it.

Ms Bouvet: I want to add two points. First, I think it's going to be one of many decisions. Neighbouring rights in Canada could be a factor to come here to Canada to fix a sound recording, but I think it's fair to say it will be one of many other components of the decision.

There are already 50 countries around the world that have neighbouring rights. There is no evidence that all American performers go to France, for example, or to other countries in order to get neighbouring rights. So it's fair to assume that it does not mean it's going to be, in the vast majority of cases, the only reason or the main reason they go somewhere else to record their performances.

Mr. Abbott: Calgary is closer than Canberra to most U.S. artists.

Ms Bouvet: But what about the U.K.? It's very close as well and we haven't seen such...

.1230

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from the Reform Party raised a very important question. When there is a question of neighbouring rights, many say they will send all their money to the United States, etc.

We all know the United States did not sign the Rome Convention. How can you get into the system and snatch those neighbouring rights.

We know that all of the hertz radio industry in the United States was destroyed because of that. My colleague is correct in saying that we should try to see what arrangements might be possible.Ms Bouvet, you said that about 50 countries signed the Convention and that not everyone can...

The fact remains that there are fewer and fewer limits. You will be able to go into the best recording studio with any musician you like. The possibilities are endless. There will have to be something fairly clear on that. I think that is essential so that there isn't a sieve somewhere that will mean that some people will get paid neighbouring rights, whereas others won't.

My colleague was wise enough to raise the issue. It is an important one.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

I would like to thank you very much, Mrs. Katz and your colleagues.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Ms Bouvet and all your colleagues, for coming here today.

[English]

I appreciate your time and your effort. We're very thankful to you. We'll no doubt see you along the way.

[Translation]

Ms Katz: It is I who would like to thank you for inviting us.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms Bouvet, you can tell your colleagues that if they want to stay, that is no problem.

[English]

We have four items of internal business to do. They are all very important because they relate to the follow-up from the bill and what goes on from here. The first item is this, and this is of key importance.

[Translation]

We had first decided that we would follow this procedure.

[English]

We're going to invite people to submit briefs. The briefs would be received during the summer. There would be a deadline date we have to set today ourselves. It would be a deadline date.

When the briefs are received, there will be lots of briefs, and then we will decide how many of these people, depending on their briefs, will be invited. The reason is this.

[Translation]

Some briefs will say the same thing. So we will try to combine them with others so that we don't have to meet with 150 or 200 organizations, but rather 50 or 60 groups, so that it will be manageable.

[English]

The idea was that we would start the study of the briefs in the fall, as soon as we can.

Here is a problem, and it concerns us all very directly.

[Translation]

According to Standing Orders, committees must reconvene as soon as the House resumes in September, or more specifically, at the earliest, 10 days after the House resumes on September 16th. So we could technically start hearing witnesses, so that they can present their briefs.

.1235

[English]

Listening to briefs would be in the second week in October. That's because once a list of members has been filed, if we stay with the same group, we have to go through the procedure of re-electing a chairman and vice-chair people, and so forth. So we're back to having these reorganization meetings that must take place. As you know, it depends on the availability of people, meeting rooms and so forth. You have to allow a week or ten days for this to take place.

So we reckon that, unfortunately, the first dates on which we will be able to hear people

[Translation]

would probably be during the second week of October, namely the 7th.

[English]

Therefore, if we want the bill to get back into the House at a decent time to be debated and finished, we reckon that we should be finished by around November 15. I'm just kind of tossing out a date.

[Translation]

If that is the case, we would have more than a month to hear witnesses. You have two choices. Unless we hear witnesses during the summer, and we had agreed that we first had to receive the briefs, review them, etc., I think we will have to sit three days a week

[English]

during October and the middle of November. There is no way we can tackle all these briefs, so I want to make it clear to members that if you get re-elected to this committee, we're going to be sitting three days a week for sure. It might take some evening sittings, depending on the availability of rooMs

[Translation]

We will have to agree

[English]

that we sit three days a week, because we have to hear the people and we have to make this hearing transparent. All the people we have decided to hear must be given a fair chance to be heard. So that's our first item.

Mr. Hanrahan: I have just a few points of clarification. As for these two lists we have just been handed, one seems much longer, obviously, than the other. What criteria are we going to use? Have we set anything up in terms of how we're going to go about choosing these folks?

The Chairman: Mr. Hanrahan, I was going to get to the list.

Mr. Hanrahan: Here's my second question.

The Chairman: Let's talk about the dates now, then we'll talk about the list, because the list is another item of business.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay. Perhaps first you can answer this. Have we made a requirement such that a brief has to be sent in x number of days rather than getting it when we show up that morning?

The Chairman: We'll discuss this when we get to the briefs.

Mr. Hanrahan: All right. I would want to then also simply add that because of the complexity of this issue, as was pointed out earlier this morning, of all the things we want to do, we want to make sure we get a fair hearing for the witnesses.

The Chairman: I agree with that 100%, Mr. Hanrahan.

Mr. Hanrahan: I'm not sure of your time line here.

The Chairman: All right. Anyway, what I wanted to say to you today as the first item of business is that there is no way this committee, unless it hears witnesses during the summer, can hear them because of the rules of the Standing Orders. We can do nothing before, I think, October 7. Then it will call for three sitting days.

If it requires evening work, I'm sure we all want to give a fair chance to members. I'm prepared to sit as often as is necessary, and I hope all of you will. I said three days, but sometimes there might be additional evening meetings. Well, let's do it.

It would seem to me that this is the kind of legislation that is important enough that we would want to do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux.

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned three days a week. How much time will that leave us for each witness? Have you figured it out?

The Chairman: We will hold two-hour sessions. This bill is as complicated as the bill on the environment, which I worked on. Ms Monique Hébert was with us. If I'm not mistaken, we heard up to three groups in one sitting.

Ms Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): At first, we had two or three groups in a two-hour period, but towards the end of our review, we gave them more time.

The Chairman: We will not hear more than three. If they are institutions or groups who table very complex briefs, we will certainly hear two, but no more than three of them.

Mr. Leroux: Fine. In any event, I think there are two goals here, and everyone seems to agree on that. We must proceed with third reading of this bill in the fall.

The Chairman: At the very least.

Mr. Leroux: Secondly, when discussing the schedule, we felt we had to leave enough time to hear witnesses and to have good discussions with them in order to be as successful as possible.

We agree on that. So we could also work evenings, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

So everybody is agreeable to as much work and as much time as it takes to give everybody a chance.

Mr. Arseneault: We're in your hands.

The Chairman: We should remember that we have to bring the legislation back to the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: According to the Standing Orders, we could not start before October 7th. I think we should set a deadline for receiving briefs.

The Chairman: We are dealing with that.

Mr. Leroux: We are discussing that?

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Leroux: Not only do we have to receive them, we also have to digest them.

The Chairman: All right.

[English]

The second item of business is lists of invitees. I've two lists that I've sent to you. One list has just been given to you. One list has been prepared by the ministries involved in the legislation. The other one is a list of people who have contacted the clerk to say they want to be heard.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Wouldn't they tie up?

The Chairman: I couldn't tell you. I don't think so. That may be the case for some organizations.

[English]

What I would suggest to you is that starting from these two lists I am going to ask the two opposition parties - Mr. Leroux and Mr. Abbott - to submit to the clerk as soon as possible any additional recommendations or suggestions you may like to make. And if the members on the government side also want to add any particular people, would you submit them to the clerk as soon as possible.

Mr. Arseneault: And what happens after that?

.1245

The Chairman: I would suggest to the committee the following procedure. We have those two lists that will be collated, of course, to make sure there's no duplication.

[Translation]

We will make just one list. Then, there will be the recommendations from the Bloc québécois and the Reform Party

[English]

that will be filed with the clerk. The clerk will write to all of them to ask them if they are interested in submitting a brief. So we will receive briefs during the summer. It's no good making a decision now as to who is going to be heard until the briefs are in, because some of these briefs might be relating to exactly the same subject and we'll try to collate them. We're not going to hear 250 people. We're going to try to hear 60 to 70, a clear representative group of the most representative people.

If this is okay with you,

[Translation]

I suggest we set September 1 as the deadline for receiving briefs.

[English]

If the clerk can send these invitations out very soon, then it will give them nearly six weeks or two months.

Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Isn't that a little bit late?

The Chairman: We can discuss this. I consulted the clerk and it seems that some of these briefs are extremely complex to put together, some of the organizations are very small and they will require more time. What we would have then is between September 1 and October 7. If you feel it's not enough... What I would like to do is to have the briefs in the hands of the members two to three weeks before the first session. Is it possible? You have to recognize also that some of these briefs have to be translated.

Mr. Peric: The people who send briefs must be almost immediately ready to appear. They have briefs. They are aware of what's going on, so why don't we give them a deadline of August 15.

The Chairman: First of all, Mr. Peric, you have to recognize that the legislation only went through second reading just a few days ago. People would have waited until the second reading was through to see what the final content of the bill would be before they would prepare a brief.

Secondly - and small organizations have told me this - big organizations have all kinds of resources at their command, but it will take quite a while for the small ones to produce a brief. Some of them have asked me to give them as much time as we can.

Maybe if September 1 is too late, we could do it August 15. I don't know, I'm just leaving it to you.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, we're not going to start hearing witnesses until October 7 or thereabouts. That gives us six weeks. I can live with September 1. I would suggest that if anybody submits a brief we'd make a request they include an executive summary that can also be helpful as a reference point.

The Chairman: Can the members tell me how long they need the briefs in advance of a meeting? First of all, we are going to be hearing them in progression. We don't hear all of them at once, so we'll take those and submit them to you. If you get them two weeks in advance, is that sufficient?

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Abbott: If we set the September 1 deadline and we have the volume of briefs, is there some concern about just shipping that whole volume to us, or is it going to be sent to us piecemeal?

The Chairman: There's a translation question. A lot of briefs are received, especially from the west and Ontario, in English only. They have to be translated. The briefs from Quebec will come mostly in French. If they're to be translated it's a massive job. This is why we do it progressively rather than in bulk. If a brief is already translated, we will send it on to you right away.

.1250

Mr. Abbott: In that case, I think two weeks prior to the person coming should be workable.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is that all right, Mr. Leroux?

Mr. Leroux: September 1 is just fine. Could we get the briefs as soon as they arrive. It's true you do need a copy for translation.

The Chairman: It will have to be made official, especially since the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for official languages.

Mr. Leroux: Do we have a budget for that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No, and that is the problem. Large organizations table their briefs in both languages, but some smaller organizations, because of the time we give them, will not have the resources for that.

Mr. Leroux: Perhaps you could send us the translated briefs as soon as they arrive, even during the month of August. Our offices are open and we could then get ahead in our work.

[English]

The Chairman: Some of us have a meeting at one o'clock. Could we conclude? We'll make the date September 1.

[Translation]

That will leave 15 days for committee members to review the briefs we receive. The same goes for the clerk and his staff.

[English]

We'll send them out as soon as possible

[Translation]

giving priority to those who will go first.

[English]

Then we've got to select those from this pile of briefs that will be invited. As early as possible after September 1, I will file a suggested list, culled by the staff, to all of you, of those that, after looking at all these briefs, seeing that they're matching and everything else, we suggest should be heard. Then you can come back to us and let us know if you agree or disagree, if you want additions or changes.

Is that fair enough?

Mr. Hanrahan: I want to make just a couple of points here. They may well be premature.

In deciding on your culling process for this group of briefs, I would like first to see a balance between the producer and the artist.

The Chairman: Committed to.

Mr. Hanrahan: I would also like the ones submitted by individuals rather than by government to receive more attention, in order to avoid the criticism of this being a snow job that we're rushing through.

Thirdly, as I look at these now, particularly the one submitted by the government - and I've only skimmed through it - there is very limited representation from either the east or the west. They're almost all from Quebec and Ontario. Now, that may reflect the artists' organization and headquarters, or whatever -

The Chairman: That is mostly the case.

[Translation]

Mr. Bouchard, perhaps you could expand on that.

Mr. Bouchard: The list is based on prior consultations. We just took the organizations that have consulted us over the past few years when the bill was being drafted or which sent us letters or unofficial briefs.

Based on that, we just drew up a very exhaustive list of all the groups that had approached us in the past.

[English]

Mr. Hanrahan: Who makes the final decision?

The Chairman: Anyway, I can give you a commitment. You can be sure that the members are going to be involved, Mr. Hanrahan. You can make recommendations right now, as I suggested to you. That's why we've given you the list. File them with the clerk. We'll invite all who submit briefs. When we look at the briefs and do the matching and the culling, I'll be sending out a list of suggested invitees, and then you will be asked to comment and add again. I can assure you that we don't want to make it a sort of little closed shop.

Mr. Hanrahan: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Will there be a hearing in September to review all that? That won't be necessary?

The Chairman: The committee will no longer exist.

Mr. Leroux: That's true. Only the committee on agenda and procedure and a few others will be able to proceed, but not us.

The Chairman: That's right.

[English]

We have to go at one o'clock. Last item. There was a suggestion by Mr. Leroux

[Translation]

that we meet on Thursday this week to again hear the... What do you think?

.1255

[English]

What is your feeling?

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: It's so that we can really understand the scope of the definitions in the bill. There are also questions relating to the agreements with some countries. We have to go further. Do we understand all the definitions, their scope, etc.?

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, Mr. Abbott had already requested a meeting for Thursday.

[English]

Mr. Abbott had asked for different reasons. The members have already expressed the feeling that they couldn't meet on Thursday. I know some of my colleagues aren't going to be here.

[Translation]

Can we leave it as is?

Mr. Leroux: For Thursday only, yes. Everyone can manage. That way, you either understand or you don't.

I have another question, Mr. Chairman. I had tabled a motion, and if we don't discuss it now, I will never know whether it is carried or not.

The Chairman: We have five minutes left. You have time to deal with it? Notice was given, the motion was accepted, and Mr. Leroux therefore has every right to discuss it today.

[English]

So if we can deal with it...

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I just wanted to remind you of the wording of the motion. It reads as follows:

Since the government has not yet responded to the report by the Mandate Review Committee (the Juneau report);

Since we therefore have no overall plan on the new mandates for the National Film Board, CBC and Telefilm Canada;

Therefore:

I move that the Canadian Heritage Committee table a report in the House in which it recommends that the government maintain the National Film Board's budget at 1995-1996 levels until such time as the government publishes its response to the Juneau report and that response has been publicly debated.

That is my motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault.

[English]

Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, you know my point of view. First of all, I made the point - and I want to reiterate - that the motion should not have been accepted in the first place. It's irreceivable. It would not be accepted in other committees. It goes against the constitutional rights of committees and the House. There's no way a committee can ask the House of Commons to increase a budget. First, asking for it to remain the status quo from a previous year is actually increasing a budget. Secondly, we had no notice that this was going to be put on the order paper today. I looked at the order paper, and it's not mentioned there whatsoever. In that case, it shouldn't be dealt with. But if you really want to deal with it, we'll vote on it and get it out of the way, I guess. That's what Mr. Leroux wants to do.

You're setting a very serious precedent when you're allowing this motion.

The Chairman: This matter was discussed. The intention wasn't to order the House. We're allowed to make recommendations, and on this basis we declared that the motion was receivable. So we can vote on it now. If there's no further debate, I'll ask for the question.

Your point of view will be registered, Mr. Arseneault.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I would like a recorded vote.

[English]

Motion negatived

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I will have a good summer. At least it's clear.

[English]

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page