[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 8, 1997
.1201 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair, Lib.): We're running a little behind, so I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about process here. I'm not a very good process person.
Tom, did you have some amendments you were going to propose, and do you need time to pull them together?
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Yes and no.
The Chair: Let me say this. We have time to do clause-by-clause tomorrow afternoon, if you need the time to do it.
Mr. Tom Wappel: I don't. I'm ready to go, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Tom Wappel: The amendments will, I hope, be very clear, based on the evidence, and quick.
The Chair: All right. Is everybody prepared then to go to clause-by-clause stage?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: Then let's roll, folks. I have to get my little script here. You would think after doing 49 of these I would be clear on what your amendments are.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Members of the committee, one of them comes from the submissions made by the previous witnesses, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
Just to be crystal clear on the intent of the paragraph found on page 2 of the bill under proposed subparagraph 462.3(c)(ii), I went through it with the witness. So that we understand it, the key is collaboration of the convicted person with the author. If the author doesn't collaborate with the convicted person, this bill would have nothing to do with it.
The Chair: Tom, to be clear, you're talking about clause 1, proposed subparagraph 462.3(c)(ii) at the top of page 2.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes.
The amendment I would suggest would be on line 5, immediately after the word ``him''. I would insert a comma and then ``with whom the person convicted collaborated,''.
To reiterate, only in circumstances where the person was a family member or a dependent who actually collaborated with the criminal would it be deemed to be proceeds of crime.
The Chair: Okay. That's one.
Mr. Tom Wappel: The second one was brought to my attention by Mr. Rosen, and he has a very good point. I use two different phrases to mean the same thing in two different clauses. This is simply inadvertence. It may be that a court, should it ever get that far, might think there was some reason why, and there is no reason why. So on page 1, clause 1, proposed paragraph 462.3(c), line 14, I've used the phrase ``based substantially on the commission''. I like that wording.
However, on page 2, in clause 3, which is the new subsection 12.1(1) of the Copyright Act, on line 26 I use the phrase ``principally based'' as opposed to ``based substantially''. In order to be uniform, I propose an amendment to remove the word ``principally'' in line 26 and add the word ``substantially'' after the word ``based''. It would therefore read, from line 25, ``and the work is based substantially on the indictable offence'', so the two phrases correspond in the two places.
.1205
The Chair: I'm just thinking here for a minute.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Anecdotally, Madam Chair, while you're thinking, I just found this. I didn't have an opportunity to bring it up, but I thought committee members might find it of some interest. Back in February of 1982, and that's going back a long way, Olson - there he is again - was talking about writing a book, and in fact stated he had sold the book. The then Liberal Solicitor General Robert Kaplan was asked about what could be done. He commented:
- Solicitor-General Robert Kaplan says his officials are sorting through legislative precedents
``from a number of jurisdictions that provide for the proceeds of a criminal's book to be turned
over to the state'' or to victims' families. ``It is done in some jurisdictions, and I think it's worth
looking at for the case of Mr. Olson,'' the minister told reporters. ``It is a matter of copyright
law, which is a federal matter and one that I'm looking at.''
The Chair: I want to propose also, although it could be done at report stage. We talked earlier about how we were going to deal with the actual funds and the danger of them going into consolidated revenue. Tom, would you accept an amendment to clause 3, perhaps an addition of a clause 4, that any funds collected by the Crown will be retained in a separate fund or account and expended solely for the benefit of victims of crime?
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Chair, with respect, I would speak against such an amendment for two reasons. I thought your original comment when the witnesses were here was perhaps a more logical approach, and I'll tell you why.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr. Tom Wappel: It would be to pass the law and then, once the law is passed, allow the Department of Justice to propose whatever it wishes to propose, based on what the minister wants to do as a matter of policy with the money. My experience in this committee previously, and in particular it dealt with the seizure of drug moneys and how to give them back to the police forces that put that money forward.... There was great reluctance, and perhaps with good justification, on the part of the ministers' - and that is ministers plural - advisers to bind the hands of the Crown of Canada as to what to do with the money. Indeed, at that time there were suggestions that the money should immediately be ploughed back....
Let's say a suitcase full of money is seized as a result of a drug bust. The suggestion was that the money be ploughed back, let's say, into the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to be used with another drug bust, and that was vociferously argued against by the departments -
The Chair: Provincial and federal.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes. Well, I think the provinces wanted it, but I take it the federal government didn't want its ability to deal with the money compromised. That's number one.
Number two, that was a government bill. This is a private member's bill, and I would be very hesitant, particularly since I gather I don't have the support of the Department of Justice, to even go further and throw more oil on the fire by trying to tell the federal government and the Department of Justice what to do with federal moneys. I would think that would best come from the department after consultation with the appropriate minister, if this law is passed.
The Chair: Are you staying with us for the rest of the day?
Mr. Tom Wappel: I wasn't planning on it.
The Chair: We can talk about that after -
Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm not opposed to it in concept, by any means. I think it's a great idea, but I think it would be too much to tack onto this bill.
The Chair: It fits in the context of what we're doing this afternoon, in any event, with respect to a victims' bill of rights. This is all editorial comment, but there are larger concerns there that were raised by some of the witnesses this morning that we may want to think about this afternoon.
.1210
For instance, should somebody who is convicted of a criminal offence be allowed to declare bankruptcy when there may be some opportunity for victims to collect from him or her later, and that sort of thing. These are all related.
All right, thanks.
I wanted Tom to outline those and then just go clause by clause.
We will now begin with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-205.
On clause 1
The Chair: Are there any amendments to clause 1? Mr. Wappel, do you move an amendment?
Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes, on page 2, as I indicated.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 1 as amended agreed to
Clause 2 agreed to
On clause 3
The Chair: I understand there's an amendment, Mr. Wappel, to line 26.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes, to remove the word ``principally'' and add the word ``substantially'' after the word ``based''.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 3 as amended agreed to
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: May I have a motion that I report this bill with amendments to the House as the tenth report of the committee?
A voice: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Good work, folks.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Chair, may I ask when that report will be presented to the House?
The Chair: Tomorrow.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.