;

HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

0910

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

0915

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

0920

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

0925

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone (General Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

0930

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave (Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière)

0935

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

0940

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

0945

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

0950

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC)

0955

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

1000

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

1005

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

1010

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

1015

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

1020

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

1025

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

1030

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

1035

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1040

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

1045

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Jean Guérette (Executive Director, Portfolio Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

1050

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

1055

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1100

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1105

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Bonin

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Bonin

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

1110

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

1115

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

1120

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

1130

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

The Chair

1135

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Richstone

1140

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

1145

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

1150

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

1155

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Bonin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 046

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, meeting today to consider Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence.

[Translation]

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is meeting to examine Bill C-36, an Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence.

I made a promise to an interested party, who contacted me by telephone yesterday to voice her displeasure, that I would read a letter that she had sent me. The letter is in English; the interpreters will translate it into French.

[English]

Dear Mr. Lincoln:

I just spoke with you briefly this afternoon about Sections 21 and 22 of Bill C-36.

I am writing as the chairperson of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists Copyright Committee. The committee membership includes representation from the anglophone and francophone professional associations of Canadian archivists and from the grouping of Canadian archival associations.

The BCA Copyright Committee supports the amendments to the copyright act represented in Sections 21 and 22 of Bill C-36.

These amendments came out of a negotiated agreement between various stakeholders, including the BCA Copyright Committee. We believe this is a balanced agreement. The amendments include two sets of changes:

A change in the terms of transition from unlimited protection to the limited protection established in the 1997 legislation. The changes involve increasing the period of protection during transition for a limited group of unpublished materials.

Amendments to section 30.21 that will eliminate certain obligations in the 1997 law requiring archivists under certain conditions: 1) to contact and seek permission of copyright holders before providing certain photocopies for research purposes, and; 2) to keep a register of photocopies made and to make it accessible to copyright holders, both very problematic items for archivists.

These are desirable amendments for the archival community because:

The amendments do NOT represent a global extension of the term of copyright; they are a change in the terms of transition from complete protection for unpublished material to a fixed term of protection. Our position on copyright term extension is loud and clear: Archivists do not support global extension to the term of copyright protection and we are on record as such. But this amendment is a change in the terms of transition from one in which there was unlimited protection for unpublished materials to the current situation where copyright protection is limited.

The removal of the requirement for archivists to contact rights holders in certain cases before providing photocopies for research purposes for materials placed in archives before September 1, 1999 is a more reasonable approach for both archivists and our researchers than the present legislation.

The removal of the requirement to maintain and make available a register of users who have received certain photocopies is of paramount importance to archivists as this is an ethical problem for us.

The following words are in bold:

The removal of this item is extremely important to archivists.

In other words, we believe that the amendments represent a compromise in which all parties reached consensus and there was give and take on issues of importance to us all.

I would appreciate you communicating these conversations to the members of the Standing Committee along with our plea not to remove these amendments from Bill C-36. I would be pleased to appear before the Committee at a later date and to explain the matters in more detail if this is considered desirable.

The amendments in Section 21 and 22 are important to the Canadian archival community and we request that they remain in Bill C-36.

It's signed by Nancy Morelli, chairperson of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists copyright committee, June 16, 2003.

We'll now proceed to the bill itself.

Mr. Bagnell.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Is it possible to get the clerk to circulate copies of that letter?

The Chair: Unfortunately, it was sent to me in English only, so we can't distribute it. That's why I chose to read it.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay.

The Chair: It has not been translated.

The lady got hold of me yesterday. She was extremely upset and asked me to commit myself to.... I said I couldn't distribute it unless it was translated, so she asked if I could read it, which I said I would do.

We'll start clause-by-clause consideration. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), our consideration of the preamble in clause 1 is postponed--which is the usual way of doing it.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chair: Clause 2 deals with “Interpretation and Application”, or in other words, with the definitions.

We have four amendments to clause 2. The first one is G-1.

Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): We move that Bill C-36, in clause 2, be amended by adding, in the French version, after line 24, page 1, the following:

administrateur général

There is a reference in the English version of clause 2 that was not reproduced in the French version. This technical amendment is required because the English version of the bill includes a definition of “librarian and archivist” while in the French version, this person is referred to as the administrateur général. However, there is no definition of the term “administrateur général” in the French version. There are eight definitions in the English version of clause 2 while there are only seven in the French version. There is a need to harmonize both versions. That is why we move that a definition be added to explain that the “administrateur général” is the administrator whose appointment is covered in subclause 5(1).

Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment.

[English]

The Chair: So you've heard the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: In clause 2, we have three amendments from Ms. Girard-Bujold, who has not yet arrived. I am told she is on the way. She is flying in from Quebec City.

As a courtesy to Ms. Girard-Bujold, I think we should set these amendments aside and return to clause 2 later, when Ms. Girard-Bujold can introduce them.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, does Ms. Girard-Bujold not have a responsibility to be here? She promised she would here at 9 a.m.. She made a commitment.

The Chair: No. She called my office to tell me that she would be attending and would arrive as early as she possibly could. She is coming by air. I don't see any reason why we could not wait for her arrival rather than examine the amendments in her absence.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Could we at least set a time?

The Chair: Her assistant has advised me that she is on the way. She should be here any minute now. As soon as she comes in, we will deal with her amendments.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Okay.

The Chair: Clause 2 is deferred.

(Clause 2 is deferred)

(Clause 3 carries)

The Chair: Are there amendments to clause 4? Yes.

For the time being, we will defer clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7.

(Clauses 4 to 7 inclusively are deferred)

¿ (0920)

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik): Mr. Chairman, is that because Ms. Girard-Bujold is not here?

The Chair: Yes, that's correct.

(Clause 8—Powers of Librarian and Archivist)

The Chair: We will now vote on clause 8, for which there are no amendments. Shall clause 8 carry?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I have a procedural question, Mr. Chairman. First, I am here as an alternate for a committee member, as is the case for some of my other colleagues. I have not had the time to study the amendments that are being put forward.

I have just thought of something. The reason why we usually proceed in numerical order is because amendments such as those that have been moved for clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, that have just been deferred, could, for example, have an effect on clauses 8, 9, and 10. Has that been taken into account?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Will you give us the assurance that, if each amendment that we have not yet considered were to be adopted, we would not have to revisit the clauses that we are adopting at this time, because we have changed the order?

The Chair: That makes sense, Mr. Bélanger. I will ask whether or not the amendments brought by Ms. Girard-Bujold for clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will affect the clauses that we are examining now. If that is the case, we will be told and will defer those clauses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It might be preferable not to pass any new clauses and to simply examine them. If they are passed, there will have to be unanimous consent to revert, and you may not get it.

The Chair: The clauses that we have deferred have no impact on the clause that we are examining now. So if this clause is passed, it will stand.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We will soon be dealing with clause 27. Since the members of the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois and the NPD are all absent, will we have to stay here all summer?

The Chair: No. We were just about to discuss that. We have an arrangement with the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance was clearly advised that we were going to sit today if the House of Commons adjourned for the summer. They are completely on side. They decided not to attend. The Bloc members will be here soon. Mr. Schellenberger, from the Conservative Party, is here.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Then there is no problem.

The Chair: Let's move on to clause 8.

(Clause 8 carries)

The Chair: We will defer clause 9.

(Clause 9 is deferred)

(Clause 10—Deposit of publications)

The Chair: The clauses that we have deferred will have no effect on clause 10. Let's move on to clause 10. The government moves amendment G-2.

Ms. Allard, you have the floor.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, this motion is intended to clarify an ambiguity in subclause 10(2). According to paragraph 10(2)(b), a publication can take many forms. The amendment stipulates that each edition, version or form of a publication, shall, for copyright purposes, be considered a distinct publication.

These are the reasons for this amendment: let's take the example of a novel for example which might be published as a paperback, in hardcover and as a deluxe or special edition, with a leather binding, etc. The publication may also be available on the Internet in two different forms. At this time, the National Library of Canada, for copyright reasons, must purchase each of the five versions: the three books and the two Internet versions.

The policy has always been that this practice should continue, which makes paragraphs 10(2)(b) and 10(2)(c) of the bill somewhat ambiguous, hence the need to amend them. Therefore, with respect to the set to which I have just referred, it is possible to interpret the act as stating that there would be one single publication available in five different forms. According to the act, only two copies of this publication must be submitted to the librarian and archivist.

But the policy has always been to have the five different publications which would all be submitted to the librarian and archivist. This policy is required in order to ensure that all Canadians will have access to every Canadian publication, regardless of its form or quality, and to ensure that these publications will be preserved for generations to come.

The amendment clarifies the bill so as to avoid any ambiguity, and in view of the clearly stated policy in the bill, the power to adopt the measures in paragraph 10(2)(b) is no longer necessary and is being withdrawn. The same applies to the first part of the powers in paragraph 10(2)(c), namely:

The term “régir” replaces the expression “prévoir” in paragraph 10(2)(c), because the first term is not as strong as the second one. In a regulation, it is not always possible to specify in advance each step that will be required in order to make a publication accessible.

That is the explanation for the amendments that we have moved to clause 10.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the second part of this amendment, the one that would add a fourth paragraph. The text reads as follows:

(4) For the purposes of this section, every version, edition or form of a publication shall be considered a distinct publication.

If I understand correctly, this would, effectively, apply to all forms and all media. It would apply whether a person is publishing something on paper or on a CD. It includes all media. Is that really what we want to say?

The Chair: Ms. Allard, the question is for you.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: This would usually apply to books. If you publish a book, Mr. Bélanger, there are copyright obligations incumbent upon your publisher.

Since books are now published in many forms, for example, in deluxe editions, we have to ensure that each version will be submitted. In some cases a book may not be published on paper but on the Internet. That has to be provided for. It says in English:

[English]

to use the medium “other than paper”.

[Translation]

We have to move with the times.

The Chair: I would like to point something out, Mr. Bélanger. The definition of the word "publication" reads as follows:

"publication" means any library matter that is made available in multiple copies or at multiple locations, whether without charge or otherwise, to the public generally or to qualifying members of the public by subscription or otherwise. Publications may be made available through any medium and may be in any form, including printed material, on-line items or recordings.

The definition is all-encompassing.

Are there any other comments? Would Mr. Richstone, or anyone else, like to comment?

Mr. Jeff Richstone (General Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): Yes. Mr. Bélanger, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that actual practice is reflected in the statute itself. The National Library of Canada currently collects all of the editions and all of the forms in order to preserve what has been published in Canada.

This amendment will ensure that the act reflects current practices.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That leads me to my second question. The definition states "multiple copies or at multiple locations, whether without charge or otherwise". If we insist that two copies of any work, regardless of its form, be submitted to the National Library of Canada, would that include, as the parliamentary secretary stated, various editions of a book, the deluxe editions, the hardcover editions, reprints, and so on? How much will this policy cost? Who will decide?

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Would you like to answer that, Ms. Delagrave?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave (Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): That is what is done now. Editions can be published successively over time. They may start with the deluxe edition, followed two years later by the paperback edition. At this time, the National Library of Canada has a policy, because of copyright, to collect all of the editions.

However, the regulation would allow them to slightly change this obligation. For example, it might be possible to decide, in the case of a deluxe edition, to only have one copy. The regulation itself provides for that. Subclause 10(2) deals with regulatory powers. According to the regulation, some changes can be made, including a decision not to collect certain things.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So why add this clause?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Because it is the general copyright principle, as is the case, incidentally, in all other countries. It reflects both the act and current practice. It is an improvement on the wording.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I am not mistaken, the board of directors can dictate how many copies are required and whether or not they must pay for them.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: The copyright is free.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can someone explain to me what is meant by the words “whether without charge or otherwise” in the definition of “publication”?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: The definition of the word “publication” now includes online publications. They may also be free of charge. They are available to the public and can be downloaded, but there is not necessarily a charge for that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be too insistent, but I do want to understand. The term “or otherwise” implies that a choice is available.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Who gets to choose? Will that be in the regulation or in the act?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: The words “whether without charge or otherwise” refer to a publication and what has been done by the publisher.

So when the publisher, or éditeur in French, provides the simple...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Either it is free or he is charging for it...

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Exactly.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In any case...

Mr. Jeff Richstone: And this applies to the “publication” category.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So, whether or not the publisher is being paid for them, copies of the publication in each available form must be provided to the archives.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: As in the case in all countries. That is what is done in practice.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: It must be nice for an author to know that his book is being taken care of somewhere in Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is nice, but the publisher must still provide the copies and there must be a place to store them.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: That is part of our documentary heritage.

The Chair: Are you satisfied, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

The Chair: Then, let's move on to clause 10, and to government amendment G-2.

Are we ready to vote on this amendment?

(The amendment carries)

We will now move on to clause 10 as amended.

[English]

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chair: I will now revert to clause 2, so we can take in Ms. Girard-Bujold's amendments.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: May we have the list of amendments?

The Chair: You should have the list. The first amendment by Ms. Girard-Bujold, BQ-1, deals with clause 2, lines 6 and 10.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière): Thank you Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being a little late and thank you for having waited for me to be here to discuss my amendments.

I believe it is very important to specify when government documents deal with electoral ridings, on the one hand, and electoral matters discussed in caucus or other documents not related to the portfolio, duties or functions of a minister. This amendment would adjust...

¿ (0935)

The Chair: One moment please Ms. Girard-Bujold; you are talking about...

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The federal institution, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Fine.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Let me explain that I am moving that Bill C-36, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following:

"government institution" means an entity

a) that is funded in whole or in part from a parliamentary appropriation;

b) that is owned by, or whose parent is owned by, the Government of Canada;

c) that is listed in schedule I, I.I, II or III of the Financial Administration Act;

d) that is directed or managed by, or whose parent is directed or managed by, a person or persons appointed under an Act of Parliament;

e) that performs a function or provides a service under an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under an Act of Parliament; or

f) that performs a function or provides a service in an area of activity relating to health, security, environmental protection or economic security that is essential in the public interest and over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to reflect the comments made by the information commissioner, Mr. John Reid. When he appeared, he stated the following:

I am also very concerned that the definitions in the bill of terms such as "document", "government record", "ministerial document and government institution" if allowed to remain, will make it impossible to meet the objectives described in clause 7 relating to the mission and attributes.

The definitions are worded in such a way as to give the department control and freedom over the decision-making process, something which is unacceptable when it comes to documents that relate to a minister's duties and which, therefore, should be considered the property of Canada rather than the ministers' private property.

As a matter of principle, ministers should not be involved in preserving or processing any documents, except in the case of their own personal or political papers.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I think this involves a government institution. You are discussing another amendment, which involves ministers' papers.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No. I am talking about the government institution, in clause 2. Is that not the case, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am introducing this amendment because, in the past, I was a victim of this type of situation when I made an application under the Access to Information Act with respect to an individual who, as of 1984, had been the Minister of Transport. Unfortunately, I was not able to access the documents because the ministers had taken their papers with them when they left the portfolio. The only minister to give his documents to the archives was Benoît Bouchard.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an important issue. How can a minister refuse to supply the national archives with documents relating to a particular subject by saying that these are political or confidential papers? I feel that the definition is far too broad.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I think you are discussing another amendment. This involves the government institution, but you are talking about ministers' papers. I do not see how this relates to the government institutions.

If you are dealing with your amendment on the federal institution, then this has nothing to do with ministers' documents. If you have another amendment dealing with that, then we will discuss it later. We are now discussing the government institution.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am talking about documents, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Precisely. The subject is the government institution, and you are discussing documents. How are they related?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Oh, I had the wrong clause; I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I will start over. I had them in the wrong order.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this clause should be amended. As Mr. Reid said, the term “government institution” is a weak one. He stated that:

One of the most obvious weaknesses in the definitions found in Bill C-36 is related to the definition of the term “government institution”.

Mr. Chairman, in Bill C-36, government institutions are defined as being those that are listed in the Access to Information Act and in the Privacy Act. Members of Parliament, journalists, academics as well as individual citizens have expressed their great concern over the inadequate coverage of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. There are now foundations that are responsible for a number of important public functions. We cannot gain access to information relating to them. But, public money is used to create these foundations. They should not be exempt from the act.

I think foundations should be covered by this bill. This would allow for greater transparency and would ensure that citizens have access to documents that should be made available to anyone who requires them.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against this amendment for a very simple reason: there is an attempt being made here, rightly or wrongly, to make up for the perceived or real shortcomings of another statute, namely, the Access to Information Act. Amendments are being moved for a bill which, when it was introduced, at least in the House, would create a new institution from two existing organizations: the National Archives of Canada and the National Library.

I am very much in favour of this initiative, and that is why I voted for it. I supported this bill in the House. However, I don't think it should remain an omnibus bill. I will be voting against other clauses in this bill, including the ones that amend the Copyright Act. That is another very broad issue.

For that same reason, I will be voting against this amendment. We must not use a rather innocuous bill with a limited scope to amend three very complex statutes, something that could lead to a great deal of controversy. I hope that all of these amendments will be rejected out of hand, including the government amendments, when the time comes. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Frulla.

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): I agree with Mr. Bélanger. This bill will bring together voluntarily—and I say voluntarily—two large institutions. This bill must therefore define the institution's framework, as we did in discussing the copyright issue earlier, and not simply serve as a tool to change or improve other pieces of legislation, because these other statutes deserve a full and proper discussion in their own right.

With respect to access to information, if the foundations are under no strict obligation to submit their documents, then we should discuss the access to information legislation, which refers to ministerial documents, and not this bill, which involves the activities of two institutions that will be joined into one.

On that point then I will be with Mr. Bélanger and vote against the amendment. I want this act to be pure and not become, as Mr. Bélanger said, an omnibus bill.

The Chair: Ms. Allard.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, could we decide not to discuss any amendments that would go beyond the scope of the bill?

The Chair: No. This amendment is definitely in order. Would Mr. Richstone or Ms. Delagrave have any comments to make?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Actually, the bill as is does not amend, it only reflects the present provisions of the National Archives of Canada Act. If ever there was to be an amendment to the Access to Information Act, whose definitions are parallel to these, there might be incidental amendments to that piece of legislation. But the main thrust of those provisions comes from the Access to Information Act.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Fine, we'll...

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You won't mind if I answer, Mr. Chairman. It is all well and good to talk about purity, as Ms. Frulla says, but we are setting up a new entity. We are joining together two organizations and we are trying to polish their image and have substance inside.

The definition for “government institution” says: “Government institution means a government institution listed in Schedule I to the Access to Information Act...” I do not understand that, legally... You can say what you will, but the foundation are entities created by the federal government and funded with public money. I do not understand why the new form we are trying to give to this merger would not have access to documents to allow them to have archives, to allow them to have documents to give people access. I do not understand Ms. Frulla's statement on purity in that at all.

Ms. Liza Frulla: Very briefly, because we are going to vote, I just want to say one thing about the foundations. The Access to Information Act is the one that determines what you have access to. Right now, it states what the two institutions are doing at this point. You can't use one act to amend another. The act has to stand on its own. It is not this act that should tell the foundations, for example, that they have an obligation to deposit their documents. It is not in this act, it is in the Access to Information Act. And the Access to Information Act is to be reviewed in the coming year, I think, to introduce a sunset clause like they have in Quebec.

At that point, your amendment, your argument which is quite justified in the case of the Access to Information Act will be introduced there. But it is not those two institutions that will force a foundation or foundations to deposit their documents while that is not the case at the present time. That is why I am going to vote against this amendment but I find that this argument is good in the case of the Access to Information Act.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, in the preamble, the analytical table, it says that among the acts that will be abrogated, there is the Access to Information Act. So I do not understand why we can't put into that new entity...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we are going around in circles.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Honestly, sir, I am sorry, but I have a right to express my opinion. You are not the only one who has a right to express your opinion.

If they do not want the amendments, Mr. Chairman, we will leave. We actually do our homework.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, we will just all take a deep breath here.

Tomorrow morning, if you were to amend this act referring to the Access to Information Act, it would be a bit ironic to amend a specific act if the general legislation it applies to is not amended at the same time. It would not make any sense.

We have heard the arguments. Are there any further comments?

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to indicate that if there are several amendments to other pieces of legislation, it is simply to change the name of the institution. It is a new name. We are making one institution out of two. So we have to change these references in the other pieces of legislation. That is why there is a whole series of amendments to other acts. It is not because we are changing those acts, we are simply taking into account the merger of both federal institutions.

Where I am going to agree with Ms. Girard-Bujold is when we are going to try to amend other acts without it necessarily involving the merger of those two institutions causing the amendments. We will get back to that later when we get to clause 26.

The Chair: In all fairness, if the amendment is in order, Ms. Girard-Bujold is totally entitled to discuss it.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: There are so few documents that you can get through Archives.

At the present time, if under the purview of this act, the Archives had these documents dealing with the foundations, we could have access to the information. Right now, if I were to amend the Access to information Act, I could not get the Archives because they would not fall under the purview of this new structure.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: No, because it says we are dealing with the Access to Information Act. So, if we amend the Access to Information Act, this act will be amended, and consequentially broadened because it will be dependent on the definition of the Access to Information Act.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you sure?

In any case, I have huge questions about that.

The Chair: Maybe we could ask Mr. Richstone or Ms. ...

Mr. Jeff Richstone: The reason we have this definition of government institution is because it has to be in conformity, there has to be consistency between the three acts: this one, setting up the Library and Archives of Canada, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

You cannot change a definition in one act without changing the two others. If you change the definition of "government institution" as is proposed in the amendment without changing the definition of what is a government institution in the other two acts, you will have an inconsistency because the right of access in the Access to Information Act will apply only to government institutions as they are set out in the bill. You will have more government institutions here, but you will have no right of access because your right of access is granted under another act. You cannot have access under other acts to institutions set out in the amendment. So there would be an inconsistency between the two acts. The idea here is to have perfect consistency. If at a given point you want to have a broader right of access to include the institutions set out in the amendment, you will have to amend the definition of "government institution" in all three acts and not in just a single one.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I understand, Mr. Chairman, but where will we bring in the amendment to be able to have those documents in the archives? In the Access to Information Act or in the other act?

The Chair: We would absolutely have to amend the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Reid came before us to recommend that the government amend his act. It refers to the Access to Information Act. There has to be consistency. If we have two contradictory acts, there will be no protection because you will be able to show that there is an inconsistency between the two acts and it will fall into the cracks.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If we amend the Access to Information Act and include the government institutions, the foundations, does it mean this act will automatically be amended?

The Chair: Exactly, because the act is subject to the Access to Information Act. So, if we amend the Access to Information Act, it will automatically follow.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes. So if you want to change the federal government's Access to Information Act, you need an act to that effect and, consequently, the definition will be amended in the other acts including the act on privacy and the one on libraries. But it would deal with the Access to Information Act first and foremost because access to information is the ultimate goal of the amendment. Here, we were just commenting about an act on archives and the library so we can't change one without changing the other two because that would create conflict. You would wind up with absurdity. For example, you'd be told that you can't have access to something to which you want to have access under this motion.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

The Chair: So, I think we've had a debate that was...

Mr. Schellenberger.

[English]

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): I know I'm new here, but I've come to help to amalgamate the archives and the library.

Back home in my little rural municipality, we went through amalgamation a number of years ago, and had we tried to correct the whole world, we would still not be amalgamated today.

I'm here to put the record straight. I feel that in an amalgamation we have to make sure that the archives and the library are on the same wavelength. We can't correct all the other wrongs that might be in the government. If we put it together, I think those things can be done.

I've had some problems with some clauses, which I figured didn't belong here, so I'm ready to sit here today to put the archives and the library together, without correcting all the rest of the problems in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Schellenberger.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, I think this discussion was necessary because it will clarify a lot of things later on.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, you're very nice. I really appreciate that.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll now vote on Ms. Girard-Bujold's amendment BQ-1.

(The amendment is lost)

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment BQ-2 on the same clause: that Bill C-36, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 2 with the following.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: One moment, Mr. Chairman, I'll just get my bill. So it's going in the same direction as before, in another words that on line 5, page 2, I'm including as a government record:

institution, including a record of a member of the Queen's Private Council for Canada who holds the office of a minister and that pertains to that office.

Earlier on, and I think you heard me, Mr. Chairman, I put forth the wrong argument. But what is important—and Mr. Reid came to state it—is that it hinders attaining the objectives in clause 7 concerning the objects and powers. I think that “the office of a minister and that pertains to that office” should be included and specified in this clause because that will make it possible to say which documents are under the control of a federal institution. When you are a minister, no matter what you say, you report to a government institution and you are a representative of government. So I think that their documents should be included here, in this clause of the act defining the application of this act and defining the documents which must be included in the areas of jurisdiction of those definitions, Mr. Chairman. That is my argument.

The Chair: Any comments?

Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think this makes it clearer, Mr. Chairman. What does “a record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council” mean? Does it mean privileged documents, or documents that are given that have solicitor-client privilege, or documents that are given for advice? How do we define “record”? Is it any document?

If I or a minister were seeking advice on something, is that one part of it? I don't think so. We've always seen the solicitor-client...[Inaudible—Editor]. So I don't think this makes it clear to us. I think it makes it ambiguous, and I certainly wouldn't include a document subject to solicitor-client privilege.

So I will be voting against this amendment.

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: I will also vote against the amendment because, once again, it affects the Access to Information Act. Quebec was the first to pass an access to information act. You'd remember that, Clifford? The Access to Information Act defines which documents are accessible. Ministerial documents are accessible in Quebec, but you have to look at the definition of the word “document”.

It's not all the documents, because there would be too much volume. The relevant documents must be deposited or, at the very least, you must have access. The same thing goes when you want ministerial documents to be sent to Canada's Archives. That comes under the Access to Information Act which is an act that could has preponderance over all legislation.

Maybe Mr. Reid tried to correct certain shortcomings of the act. I will vote against that amendment because it is not in its place. Mr. Chairman, we will revisit this discussion when we analyze the Access to Information Act.

À (1000)

[English]

The Chair: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not affect the Access to the Information Act, it is only there to specify what constitutes a government record. My amendment provides that the new definition of the expression “government record” will be the following: “Means a record that is under the control of a government institution, including a record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a minister and that pertains to that office.”

I am only trying to define what a government record is, Mr. Chairman. I am not affecting the Access to Information Act at all. This only affects the Library and Archives of Canada Act. It is just there to determine the application of the act. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to put the previous question now?

The Chair: I would have liked to ask Mr. Richstone if the arguments raised during the discussion of the preceding amendment are the same in this case.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thus, you are telling me that it is not appropriate. In that case, I will intervene, if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: First, I shall obtain Mr. Richstone's opinion. Then you may intervene.

Mr. Richstone, you have the floor.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mr. Chairman, the same arguments apply. Once again, there is an inconsistency. We wanted to adjust the definitions to the other acts. In my opinion, we are taking part of the definition of “ministerial record” appearing in clause 2 and it is then being attached to the definition of “government record” while the bill does make a distinction between the two.

If we go ahead with that, then there is no reason to define what constitutes a ministerial record, while it is actually important to distinguish between the two in the present act and in the bill before us. The motion creates ambiguity by joining the two together.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger, it is forbidden to move the previous question in committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the evidence that comes from the same source is that the member herself, when presenting the amendment, said that it followed from Mr. Reid's comments. Mr. Reid's role is to apply the Access to Information Act and he is trying to get his act amended, which is quite legitimate. He may do so and it is up to us to decide whether it is appropriate.

We have already decided it was not appropriate and that this debate should be held within the context of a review of the Access to Information Act. We must say no once again and invite the member or her colleagues from the Bloc Québécois sitting on the appropriate committee to introduce their amendments in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This man is very directive, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: No, Mr. Chairman, he simply gave his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion.

The Chair: Agreed.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I do not think the Bloc Québécois has anything further to do here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We witnessed the same thing last night.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, no, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have done our work, but it would seem that the government side judges that the work done by the Bloc Québécois is unacceptable.

The Chair: That is not at all the case, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We will now vote on amendment BQ-2.

(The amendment is lost.)

The Chair: For the record, it must be pointed out that amendment BQ-3 that we have before us cannot in any way be introduced by Ms. Girard-Bujold; unless someone else wants to do it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In order to advance the work of the committee, I move that we dispose of it.

The Chair: The amendment is not in order because it goes beyond the scope and intent of the definition. These are documents that have nothing to do with it and in fact deal with ridings, parties, electoral affairs, caucus affairs and so on. It goes beyond the intent of the definition. This amendment is thus not in order in any case.

We will now vote on clause 2 as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended carries)

(Clause 4—Establishment)

The Chair: We voted on clause 3 so we shall now go to clause 4. Ms. Girard-Bujold has an amendment, BQ-4.

That Bill C-36, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 2 with the following:

The Library and Archives of Canada and being under the direction of

Is Mr. Bélanger ready to move it? Any comments or debate on this question?

Ms. Allard.

À (1005)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Girard-Bujold's argument is to the effect that all authority should be withdrawn from the minister. I do not think this is appropriate. However, we could ask Mr. Richstone to explain what the consequences of this amendment would be.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mr. Chairman, from what I understand of the scope of the amendment proposed by Ms. Girard-Bujold, it would, in reality, change the sense and nature of the institution. At the present time, both institutions answer to Parliament through the Minister of Heritage Canada. The present status is reflected in clause 4. Bringing about such a change would change the status of the institution.

If I fully understand the sense of the other amendments, they reflected, in part, other amendments proposed to change the role of the Library and Archives of Canada so that the officer would become an officer of Parliament rather than a general administrator under the direction of the Minister of Heritage Canada. It is the reference to other amendments that really changes its scope.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I would refer to what my colleague said a bit earlier. The clause 4 definition is a verbatim reproduction lifted from the old National Archives of Canada Act. So, we are not changing anything; we are just bringing back what existed previously.

I would suggest we go back to the previous question...

The Chair: There is no previous question.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: ... for the amendment.

The Chair: In any case, we are going to vote on amendment BQ-4, unless there are further comments.

(The amendment is lost)

The Chair: We will now go to clause 4.

[English]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

[Translation]

Clause 5—(Appointment of Librarian and Archivist)

The Chair: With amendment BQ-5, Ms. Girard-Bujold is moving that clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 38 to 42 on page 2...

Is anyone ready to move this amendment?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of information, Ms. ...

The Chair: One moment, please, the amendment must be moved otherwise it dies.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I am not moving it.

The Chair: The amendment falls. We will now go to amendment BQ-6. Is anyone moving this amendment?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I will move it.

The Chair: So we have a mover for amendment BQ-6. Moved that Bill C-36 in clause 5 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 3 the following:

(3) The Librarian and Archivist shall report annually to Parliament, within four months after the end of the fiscal year being reported, on the activities of the Library and Archives of Canada and the administration and implementation of this Act and the regulations during that year.

[English]

Amendment BQ-6 states that clause number 5 be amended after line 7 on page 3--and you have the text in front of you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger, any comments?

[English]

Aucun.

The order is Madame Allard and then Madame Bulte.

Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So this is adding a new paragraph specifying there must be a report to Parliament. Maybe we could ask Mr. Richstone or Ms. Delagrave what the present situation is.

À (1010)

The Chair: Before going to Mr. Richstone, we could ask Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that Mr. Richstone already addressed this issue in his last commentary. He said this would change the nature of the role of the archivist. This changes it completely. I think, again, we're going back to amalgamating these two statutes, not creating new statues.

The Chair: Madame Delagrave.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: We already report to Parliament every year, as you can see.

The Chair: Yes, Larry, would you like to ask a question?

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Sorry, under what authority do you report to Parliament?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: We report through the minister.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: No, but I mean in the act. Is it in one of the acts?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: There's no specific provision. As all departmental agencies do, we report to Parliament through the minister.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: And as all deputy heads do, of course, you keep in mind the rural lens when you look at your activities.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? If not, we'll go on to the vote on amendment BQ-6 on clause 5.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6--Establishment of Advisory Council)

The Chair: There's an amendment, again from Madame Girard-Bujold.

Is somebody prepared to move it?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: First, I would like to understand the sense of it.

I so move.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold's amendment BQ-7 to amend clause 6 is moved by Mr. Bélanger.

Any comments or are we ready for the vote?

Ms. Frulla.

Ms. Liza Frulla: I find this amendment to be very restrictive as it concerns the makeup of the advisory committee. There is a mention of an open competition, two persons with training in library science, expertise in the area and so on. It is true that this has been done elsewhere, but the fact remains that it is a rather restrictive amendment.

On the other hand, I would be comfortable with adding other things to respond to the concerns we have already discussed, in other words that an advisory committee must be made up of members from the community itself and interested in preserving as well as sharing knowledge.

It might be a good thing to mention the interests of the members making up the advisory committee and ensuring that the latter is not just there pro forma; in other terms, the committee should really help the managers think about and find solutions.

Without being as restrictive as the amendment, we could propose that the minister set up an advisory committee made up of members from that particular community and that they show an interest in acquiring and preserving as well as actively sharing knowledge.

It seems to me that might add something while giving some sort of status to the advisory committee. We have very often seen advisory committees which, at the end of the day, existed because somebody wanted to please certain people. One did not know quite what to do with them so they were fitted in there.

The Chair: Ms. Frulla, I will make a suggestion. Ms. Bulte, Ms. Allard, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bagnell have been asking for the floor.

À (1015)

[English]

Before I do so, I wanted to mention to you that the only way you could deal with it is either in some subamendment or just in some friendly change, in agreement with Mr. Bélanger, who proposed the amendment. But we'll get to this a little later. Let's hear from the members first.

Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't agree with the amendment, Mr. Chair, for a number of reasons. It's too restrictive. I agree with Madam Frulla with respect to that.

But where do we get this number five? I mean, are we as a committee going to legislate the number of people? With all due respect, I don't think that's the committee's role, first and foremost.

Second, I am going to disagree with Madam Frulla. These are advisory council appointments, people who are not going to take this job unless they're interested in it. And it already said “to anyone with an interest in Canada and facilitating access to it”, with “it” being the documentary heritage.

I certainly know the librarian, Mr. Carrière. He's well-known and he knows a lot of people. He would almost be best suited to decide who are the people who would advise. I think we should leave it as general as possible and leave it to the evolution.

And I think it's important also to remember that advisory council appointments are just that, pro bono appointments. Someone who is not going to love this and want to be part of this is not going to accept this appointment. So I'd leave it as is.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Allard, Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Bagnell.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I think that Ms. Girard-Bujold may be [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulties] recognize that clause 6 provides that the advisory committee will have only one function which is to advise the Librarian and Archivist on how to make the documentary heritage known. The advisory committee will be asked for advice on exhibitions. I consider that recruiting those people through an open competition, as Ms. Girard-Bujold is suggesting, would only make the bureaucratic process more cumbersome, in view of the council's activities. Thus I am opposed to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Yes, I think the member who proposed it completely misread the clause because it's not about library science or conservation or mergers or anything; it's about public relations. It's essentially to make documentary heritage known to Canadians, basically a kind of public affairs outreach dealing with how we tell people what's going on. So I think this is a complete misreading of the clause.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I have a question on this clause, but just before I ask it I'd like to say that there is some possibility of my being convinced to support these Bloc amendments, because I have some sympathy for them, but I find it reprehensible that the member is not here to provide the evidence that might have changed my mind.

This clause is quite open. I wonder if the officials could tell me whether they have a committee now, or whether they might just ignore this because it just says it may have a committee. Is there one that works now, which could just be continued?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: This committee would be set up by the minister. However, you're right, we have a number of technical committees of archivists, of librarians. We have provincial ones, regional ones, national ones, and we belong to several international ones. So we get plenty of technical advice on library science and archival matters.

The purpose of this committee is different, as Mr. Godfrey just pointed out. It is to provide advice to reflect the diversity of Canadian voices in making known the documentary heritage of Canada.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: And will you be recommending to the minister to establish this committee--because it says “may” here?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: It is for the minister to decide--

Mr. Larry Bagnell: On your recommendation.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Certainly, the department thinks it's a good idea.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Frulla, briefly.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: The advisory council does not exist for any other institution at the present time. There are technical committees, but no advisory council for the National Archives of Canada nor for the National Library of Canada at this present time.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: And the one that is provided for in the bill does not exist.

Ms. Liza Frulla: And now...

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: However, there are other advisory committees.

Ms. Liza Frulla: The advisory committee provided for in the bill does not exist at the present time.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Yes, it does not exist at the present time.

Ms. Liza Frulla: I agree with Sam, an advisory committee is rather vague wording. Whoever is interested [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulties] cannot be any more vague than this on how to make our heritage known. So I wonder what advantage there is for the institution to have an advisory committee of that kind.

À (1020)

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: One of the purposes of the bill is to make our documentary heritage better known through exhibitions, shows, etc. An advisory council constitutes an external voice, the voice of Canadian society, thus enriching the perspective of an institution that otherwise would only be an internal one.

Ms. Liza Frulla: Without being restrictive, would it not be useful to ensure that the advisory council plays an active role, as is allowed under the present bill? It would be consulted.

Would it not be useful to mention that its members should have a relevant background? From what I understood of your remarks, this advisory council is supposed to be a different voice from that of technical experts. Good enough, but an advisory council made up of interested people who do not have the necessary knowledge of the services that you can provide could in fact prove to be more obstructive than anything else.

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: It might also be assumed that there are many Canadians who could provide excellent advice, without necessarily coming from a library or archives background.

The expression “to anyone with an interest in Canada” follows the reference “to making the documentary heritage known”, but it does not describe the members of the advisory council.

Ms. Liza Frulla: Are you comfortable with an advisory council of that type?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Insofar as it is only an advisory council, yes.

Ms. Liza Frulla: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Frulla, can we now proceed to a vote on the amendment or are you moving a subamendment?

Ms. Liza Frulla: Mr. Chairman, I would have moved one, but as I explained to you, I am not dogmatic. I could have moved that the advisory council be made up of a majority of members from a professional background interested in the acquisition, the preservation and the dissemination of knowledge to ensure that this council would be on the same wavelength as the two institutions. I repeat, I am not dogmatic on this point.

The Chair: We've just lost our quorum. If we do not add a member to the committee, we won't have quorum.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, you said an amendment would have to be a friendly amendment. I consider this one friendly, but not friendly enough.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The other thing I should like to point out is that unless someone asks for quorum, which no one has so far, we can proceed.

The Chair: I don't think that's correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is the rule.

The Chair: I would rather be safe than sorry. I'm not going to take a chance. I would rather have quorum.

Mr. John Godfrey: Can't they get someone else?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Raymond Bonin is coming.

The Chair: Okay, good.

Mr. Bélanger is not prepared to accept a friendly change to the amendment.

[Translation]

If I understand correctly, Ms. Frulla, you are letting the matter drop.

À (1025)

[English]

Okay, we'll now vote on the amendment to clause 6, BQ-7.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 6 agreed to)

[Translation]

(Clause 7—Objects)

The Chair: We'll now turn to clause 7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to move amendment BQ-8 and speak against it.

The Chair: I am sorry, but the amendment BQ-8 is out of order because it introduces a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the section. So we'll now vote on clause 7.

[English]

(Clause 7 agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: Clause 8 has already been adopted.

(Clause 9—Destruction or disposal)

The Chair: We are now dealing with amendment BQ-9 to clause 9. That bill C-36, in clause 9, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 4 with the following: “9.(1) The Librarian and Archivist may, on the recommendation of the advisory council, dispose of”.

Would someone like to move the motion? No? In that case, the amendment is not moved and the matter is closed.

Are you ready to vote on clause 9?

(Clause 9 carries)

The Chair: We have already adopted clause 10.

[English]

We've already adopted clause 10, so we'll move on to clause 11.

(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13--Transfer of records)

The Chair: There's an amendment on clause 13, BQ-10. BQ-10 is receivable.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to move the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-10 has been moved.

[Translation]

That Bill C-36, in clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 25 on page 7 with the following:

13. (1) At the request of the Librarian and Archivist, any government record that he or she has appraised as having historical or archival value shall be transferred to the care and control of the Librarian and Archivist under his or her direction.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like those attempting to amend clause 2, would be more appropriate during a debate on the revision of the Access to Information Act.

The Chair: Is the government in agreement with that?

[English]

Okay, I'll call the vote on BQ-10.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: There are no amendments for clauses 14 to 25.

[English]

Are members--

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Excuse me, it is clauses 14 to 20.

The Chair: Are committee members ready to vote on clauses 14 to 20?

[English]

We can deal with clauses 14 to 20 in one vote.

(Clauses 14 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

[Translation]

(Clauses 21 and 22)

The Chair: We are dealing with clause 21.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions on clause 21 and clause 22, that set out to amend the Copyright Act, in particular certain aspects dealing with unpublished works. The general opinion is that these clauses should not be found in this bill. We therefore propose that they be removed and this would also have the effect of doing away with any reference to amendments to the Copyright Act in the headings.

À (1030)

The Chair: I'll proceed in the following manner: I shall call each of these clauses, starting with clause 21. If you are not in favour of the clause, you will vote against it at the time. That is the way to go about it.

[English]

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Are we having discussion?

The Chair: Yes, you're perfectly entitled to have a discussion, of course.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I would just like to get some rationale for the removal of these clauses. The letter you read from Nancy Marrelli, chairperson of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists copyright committee, said these were very important to them, especially the one relating to photocopies.

I would actually like to ask a question on the photocopies. Does it give carte blanche for anyone to photocopy anything, or is it just for archivists to preserve things with an extra copy or for research purposes?

The Chair: Mr. Richstone, would you care to answer?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand clause 22 to be the latter. It would have been photocopying for research and private study of documents in archives.

The sense of the amendments to clause 22 was to relieve certain restrictions and to permit the copying of documents in archives, whether deposited before or after the coming into force of that section, which was in 1999, and to allow research.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: But does it mean that anyone could come in and photocopy something for their own private research?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Well, again, the way subsection 30.21(1) is articulated, it depends on a number of conditions. If the documents are in archives right now, they are subject to restrictions as we speak.

The person who deposited those documents can put an absolute ban on them, and in many cases that is the practice. It was the practice before subsection 30.21(1) came into force in 1999 and it continues to be the practice.

Many distinguished people--and many not so distinguished people--deposit their materials, their documents, in archives, and they can say, well, I do not want anyone to look at it before so many years, in order to protect their own personal privacy or that of their correspondents, whatever.

Once those restrictions are gone, then the Copyright Act takes over. Under the Copyright Act, as we speak right now, there are certain restrictions. For works deposited before the coming into force of that subsection, which was in 1999, you had to obtain consent. If you couldn't find the copyright owner, you had to look for the person who was the depositor of the records or works, the author. If that person had died before 1949, there was a requirement to go through the research and private study conditions without looking for the owner.

So there was a series of complicated conditions within the Copyright Act that either allowed for access subject to consent or subject to reasonably finding the person, subject also to keeping a record. The proposed change in clause 22 was to make a one-tier regime for all that, again, for research and private study, in either case.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I'm just trying to take seriously the advice of these experts. They seem to think clauses 21 and 22 are very important. But why do they say it's an ethical problem to keep a register of who makes photocopies?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: This is not my argument; it is their argument. In my interpretation of their argument, there were some questions raised in the actual section, which is in the act right now, about keeping a register. There were privacy issues around this, because if people consulted the work, you'd have to keep a register of who consulted on any given day. Other people could come and look at the register, and there was a question of whether that was perfectly consistent with laws respecting privacy, and questions had been raised on that section.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

À (1035)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have said at the outset that I would oppose these sections, in other words, copyright issues, that are not as a result of the merger of these two institutions, which is the principal intent of the bill.

As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, when we were dealing with Bill C-32, I think it was, in the 35th or 36th Parliament, which was copyright legislation, we had 70, 80, or 90 witnesses appear before us. It took us weeks upon weeks upon weeks. It's an extremely complex issue. At the end of it, the committee achieved a balance--a precarious balance--but still a balance and sufficiently acceptable for the House then to accept our report, which substantially amended the law that government had proposed. You will recall all of that.

I think before this committee deals with these issues on an ad hoc basis, one at a time, it should pause and reflect. I'm very happy to hear what the parliamentary secretary has said, that government is accepting the notion that we shouldn't proceed with these. They should be dealt with in a context of review of the law, which I believe is required every five years, if I recall. We injected that request for revision in the Copyright Act. That has yet to occur, and I would encourage this committee to refer these amendments to that exercise, whenever it occurs, because we must be careful of amending parts of that act and upsetting the whole apple cart. I haven't, for one, heard enough to be able to pass judgment on this, and I think it would be unfair to do so at this time.

I encourage colleagues to accept the recommendation from Madame Allard and, if it's the way we must proceed, vote these down at this time.

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: I must admit that I agree with Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

I want to put the record straight here.

[Translation]

This clause contains a deadline, something that is not to be found anywhere else. Furthermore, we shall be undertaking the revision of the Copyright Act in September. If that had not been the case, the debate might have been different. Since we will be considering the matter in September and since there is a short timeframe, we can postpone the discussion to a more appropriate moment.

There are advantages to both approaches. It should be an enlightened discussion. In view of the fact that the act will be reviewed in September, I agree with eliminating these clauses provided we agree that we will deal with the issue in the reform of the Copyright Act.

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Mr. Bélanger on my concern about the copyright, and it is an issue that needs to be looked at to strike the right balance. However, having said that, I'm a little uneasy.

Madame Frulla, you asked what guarantee is there that we're going to do this in September. There is a deadline on this, and that is my concern. I received letters from the Canadian Bar Association, and there is really some concern about the deadlines with the death of...the unpublished works. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned for the rights holders, if anything, here and if we let it expire, there will be another reason.... I understand what Mr. Bélanger said, and I don't like to rush this whole area of copyright as well--the importance of fair balance. I'm feeling very uncomfortable just taking it out and saying, well, we'll just see what happens in September and whether we'll have a chance to...because we do have a deadline here and I think we also have a responsibility to ensure that we protect the rights holders as well.

À (1040)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I can understand these concerns, but in a purely logical fashion, if this bill.... Your concern, I suspect, is what if the government prorogues the House and then we have a situation where we can't deal with the revision of the act. In that case, we won't be dealing with this act either, whether it's amended or not. That concern is not addressed by adopting these motions or not adopting them. If the session is prorogued, then all bets are off, period, whether we deal with this here or not.

Therefore, I would encourage the committee to perhaps accelerate its revision of the act. Committees are allowed to sit in the summer. That's one way we could address that. I really believe that the entire package has to be addressed, not just piecemeal.

The Chair: Just for the information of the members and for the record, the situation regarding the copyright review is this. After discussion with our advisers--Madame Hébert, who is a specialist in copyright, and others--we have to give several weeks to people to produce briefs before the committee. We have just agreed on what format we are going to send out an invitation for briefs. Our advice has been that it will take the whole summer for people to prepare briefs. It's a very, very complex issue.

The government issued a report on copyright setting out various options, so we are sending out a communiqué inviting briefs. There's no way we can tackle copyright, the review itself, before September. We'll do the best we can.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I just have one concern on one small area. If you have a rare record of which there's only one copy--a manuscript or something--does this provision make it easier to photocopy that? Under the existing conditions, maybe there would be some circumstances where it would be impossible to photocopy that and keep it in a separate place to avoid it being destroyed. I assume that's one of the purposes of one of these sections.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: If I may respond, there is a provision already in the Copyright Act for that purpose. If libraries, archives, or museums have rare copies that need to be preserved, they can make a back-up preservation copy for certain purposes. That has already been addressed in the 1997 Copyright Act that Mr. Bélanger spoke about.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me right, the timeframe for both these clauses, if they are not amended, is December.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Liza Frulla: There is a definite unease. But once again, for things to take place normally and for us to have an informed view, the matter should be studied within its own framework. However, since the time limit is set for the month of December, could we not first of all study this issue and work on the revision of the Copyright Act separately? In other words, if there is something to be amended for urgent reasons, we would amend it ourselves, but in the framework of the Copyright Act. We would then proceed to our work on the Copyright Act. In other words, we would be discussing these clauses where they are appropriately discussed, keeping in mind the December timeframe.

Would that be possible?

The Chair: Ms. Frulla, we must be clear about the authority and the possibility that we have to carry out work. We shall be examining the Copyright Act. First of all, we must ask the House for an extension to June, since the deadline of October 1st will have been exceeded. So we will first of all have to ask the House to be able to carry on our work until June of next year.

The only thing that we can do is to report to the House and the government will have 150 days to respond. Afterwards, there will be legislative amendments. If there are amendments to the legislation, it is something that will take two years. It cannot take place separately. Those are the facts.

It will happen only after the report has been presented to the House. The government will have six months to respond and then, it will have to propose an amendment to the act. That would mean approximately a year and a half to two years. In the meantime, if there is an election, it will be postponed even longer.

À (1045)

Ms. Liza Frulla: In other words, if the deadline is in December, it is absolutely impossible...

The Chair: It is absolutely impossible...

Ms. Liza Frulla: It is absolutely impossible, even if we do study it in a special framework. It's impossible to address the matter.

The Chair: Clearly it is impossible to guarantee that we will be able to deal with this issue before December 31. We have to be clear on this point.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman,

[English]

If I may inform the members who are not very familiar with this, there are two new rules that these clauses bring in. New rule number three is with regard to authors who died between 1930 and 1949. Their work is protected--it's not protected until this year, but we would like with this clause to prolong it to 2018, and authors who died before 1930. We're not touching many, many big, big areas of the community. They have been dead for 50 years now and their work hasn't been published.

So I would follow the opinion of Mr. Bélanger. I think we should address the whole issue of copyright with the committee.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Bagnell and Madame Bulte.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Do the officials see any problems if we take these out, such as excessive litigation?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Well, there wouldn't be excessive litigation with the act as it is right now. The only practical consequence, as committee members have mentioned, is that there is a limit, a deadline. The clock is ticking. That's all.

There wouldn't be excessive litigation. It would fall into the public domain unless Parliament acted before December 31 of this year.

The Chair: Almost impossible, I mean, unless there's a--

Mr. Jeff Richstone: I can't say.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Based on the conversation we just had with the questions raised by Madame Frulla, I'm feeling very uncomfortable about removing the clause that deals with the unpublished works of authors.

Now I understand the concern that, yes, we have to find the right balance. It's one thing to find the right balance. We can find the right balance, but once we give that right away and it's gone, how are we retroactively going to bring it back. That is my concern.

I'm not saying it's a perfect piece. My suggestion is, if it isn't perfect, it can be amended. But to let it go completely.... Which is worse, to let the right go completely? I guess that's my concern. I don't want this to slip through by saying okay, we need to have a review, which I don't disagree with. This is so important and so crucial for the rights holders here that if we let this go.... Unless the officials give me a reason why I should let this go, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to vote against removing clause 21.

The Chair: Fair enough.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Could the officials perhaps...?

The Chair: Monsieur Guérette.

Mr. Jean Guérette (Executive Director, Portfolio Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage): As officials, we can only go as far as what Mr. Richstone just mentioned. The fact is there are certain people who are given five years to publish their works in the copyright amendments of 1997. If on December 31 those rights are not exercised.... In fact there's another point as well that needs to be mentioned. This bill also clarifies that if they publish now, they would receive 20 years of protection of the published work, which was not included in the 1997 amendments.

Therefore, there are both of these facts to consider--that at the end of this year those works would become public and also, as you said, they cannot be brought back, or can be brought back only with difficulty, at that point. It was fine to give them five years to publish, but since there would be no extended period to the publication, obviously then there was no real incentive if they wanted to publish it during that period of time. The extension to the publication period and also the clarification that if they publish they get another 20 years of protection for the published work are the two provisions that would be lost if in fact this is not amended before December 31.

À (1050)

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: Mr. Chairman, there was some unease at the outset, as we know. We did feel uneasy in our discussions. We cannot discuss this matter within the Copyright Act itself and you inform me that the timeframe will be two years when this particular deadline is very urgent. There are even groups who have come to tell us that as a result of use, they have realized that it was a mistake not to include these sections within the Copyright Act in its subsequent revision.

So I will be voting in favour of retaining these clauses within the bill, first of all because of the timeframe and then because of the additional explanation given by Mr. Guérette.

The Chair: Let me make matter perfectly clear so that no one is misled. What I said is that in the revision, in the study that the House of Commons has invited us to carry out and that must be done as a statutory requirement, we will have to make a report before June 2004. This report will be sent to the government that will have to respond within six months.

What I was saying is that quite probably the legislative amendments will not be made before then. But as Mr. Bélanger and others pointed out, if the government decides before September to amend the Copyright Act specifically for these sections, nothing can prevent it from doing so.

So it's important for this to be quite clear: it is up to the government to decide when it is going to act. I was talking about the committee and its study.

[English]

Is there any more discussion, because I think we're...?

Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Schellenberger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm glad, Mr. Chairman, that you made your last comment. In the present situation, there is some uncertainty about whether Parliament will be sitting next fall or not. There's nothing we can do about that and we are not the ones who will be deciding.

So we must proceed on the assumption that Parliament will continue to sit this fall and that the session will not be prorogued. We all know that when there is the will to amend legislation and there has been sufficient discussion, full discussion involving all parties and all those who have an interest, it can quite easily happen that the bill will be adopted in first, second and third reading by both Houses fairly quickly. We did it in 15 minutes in the House last Friday for a particular bill. So that is far from being impossible. We cannot guarantee it but in life, we don't have many guarantees.

I'd like to return to the point that we must be very careful about not reversing or affecting the balance that was achieved between the rights of authors and creators and the rights of those who consume such products. It was an exercise that lasted weeks and we worked extremely hard at achieving this balance. Here we are talking about just one situation. We are talking about extending rights without knowing what the effect would be on other spheres, once again in relation to copyright. I think that this committee is in a very good position to do the necessary work before adopting such measures.

If the government is unyielding on this point and the committee says no, nothing prevents it from introducing this once again at the report stage, first of all, nor does anything prevent it from presenting a bill that has been split, independent of this one. In my opinion, it is not quite just towards parliamentarians for the government to present very complex amendments within a bill which is basically rather simple and direct. I think that parliamentarians must occasionally send a message to the government so it doesn't take us for granted, as would appear to be the case in this particular instance.

That is why I think it should be withdrawn. If it has to be defeated for it to be withdrawn, too bad, but let us do so in an appropriate manner, having given the matter due consideration.

À (1055)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger.

Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I'm just wondering as I sit here today, if we were not trying to join the library and the archives, would we be here talking about copyright? Fine, then.

Because of the complicated copyright legislation, I can't include it in this legislation. I think there should have been two things going on at the same time. I'm here to carry on with what I'm here for.

The Chair: I'd like to ask a question before we go to a vote, because I think it's important.

The joint technical copyright committee of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada--what a short name--and the Canadian Bar Association national intellectual property law section pretend there's a technical flaw in this clause. They say, “our comments identify a problem with the drafting of section 21 of the bill”. I imagine you've seen their comments, Mr. Richstone?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: I have, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Could you comment whether there's any validity to their arguments or...?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: We studied the arguments and we came to a similar conclusion, that there would have had to have been a correction made. The drafting you see in front of you would have had to have been corrected had we proceeded with these two clauses.

The Chair: So what you're saying, Mr. Richstone, if I understand you, is that concerning clause 21, in regard to the people who are going to vote for it.... Shouldn't they know to what extent it should be corrected to make it technically correct? Otherwise, if we vote on this and the people who want clause 21 kept carry the day, it means that a technically flawed clause will be present. Shouldn't we just find out how it should be corrected first?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Certainly, Mr. Chair, if you want me to explain--

The Chair: It's very crucial, because Madame Frulla and I believe Mr. Bagnell and Madame Bulte have reservations about removing the section. If they want to keep it on, they want to make sure they are voting for something that is technically correct. If there's a flaw there, we had better hear about it.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I was involved in all of the discussions of this committee. One of the reasons why we decided that we would remove them, is, as you may remember, the outburst of our alliance colleagues who, at one point, accused us of turning this bill into an omnibus bill. They were very uncomfortable with us including these sections. So in an attempt to come up with a consensus, with the agreement of the department, I more or less gave my word to the committee members who are not here today that these clauses would be removed. That is why I feel very uneasy.

Obviously, as an author myself, I think that... Some of the people we heard from said that it was important for them to have this protection in the act, that copyright is often the only inheritance left to children. On the other hand, on the same day, we heard from people who denounced additional protection because they claim it in fact prevents research and so forth.

As a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman, I gave my word and I was quoted in previous meetings of the committee. I cannot recommend today...

The Chair: Just a second.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: ... that these two sections be brought back.

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Allard. It is up to the committee to decide what it intends to do, at any time. We cannot prejudge the action of committee members. If there were negotiations in good faith on both sides, it is in no way a reflection on your good faith. It depends on the committee members at any given time, based on the discussions.

What I wanted to raise was in an entirely different matter. If there are committee members here who have not taken part in these discussions and who do not feel comfortable in keeping this amendment, they should realize that the amendment contains technical errors that must absolutely be rectified. Otherwise, they will be adopting an amendment that is not correct.

Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I think this is so very important. If we remove this section, what we are actually doing is allowing works to go into the public domain come January 1. There won't be any discussion about fair use; the rights owners will have lost.

I'm unhappy with the fact that it's technically flawed, because as I said, I also read the same material from the Canadian Bar Association, its intellectual property division. So in fairness and to ensure we don't give away rights that we're not going to be able to....

The consequences of what we are doing here are immense, if we let this go. My recommendation would be that we ask our officials to come back with a technical amendment and that we hold this clause down.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

Ms. Liza Frulla: Mr. Chairman, I would say that in a case such as this,

[English]

I would say better safe than sorry, and those that have to be saved,

[Translation]

They are the copyright holders. I can understand the two people who appear before us, one of whom was speaking on her own behalf, to tell us that these amendments were not appropriate for research purposes because they would not be able to have access to certain items.

In view of the letter you read to us today, and certain representations we had from people directly concerned by these clauses, I can understand the discussions we had last week with the members of the Alliance. But today we are present. The discussion is taken place here and we have some new considerations.

I thought that in the discussion on the Copyright Act, we could have settled for January. But that is far from being certain. For the time being, I would prefer to protect the authors and ensure that they do have protection rather than protect the right of one or two researchers. I am not at all comfortable, but I would like to have a clause that makes sense, rather than one containing anomalies.

[English]

The Chair: Could I make a few suggestions?

First of all, we have reached 11 o'clock. I was advised before this meeting started that many of the members who have kindly agreed to come here today to deliver quorum have commitments and they can't stay indefinitely.

By my way of thinking, there are two or three options: one, because of the fact that there's a technical flaw in clause 21, in fairness to those who want to keep clause 21, that has to be corrected and we have to see a text; two, we could stay clauses 21 and 22 and adopt as many others as we can in the next few minutes, if this is the wish of the members; or three, we leave it for now and decide to come back at some time.

I'm at your disposal to come back anytime, or if members want to just leave it, it's up to you, but I don't believe we should look at this without the members who feel we should keep this section having a chance to see a corrected version.

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, you have a motion in front of you, I believe, that these be withdrawn.

The Chair: There has been no motion at all. The way to deal with it is to have a vote as to whether we carry the clauses or not. You can just have a vote on the present text. It's for you to decide. I'm just saying I've pointed out that there's a technical flaw that has been brought to our attention, and it has been confirmed by the officials that there is. If you want to vote on a technically flawed amendment, that's fine.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to consider a motion that these two clauses be struck? Then you'll have a clearer sense of direction.

[Translation]

If people wish to reject it, then it is decided. Otherwise, then we will have to go on to the second stage.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): You will be debating the issue only to reject it after two hours.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, I do not think so, I think that the debate is over.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, I did ask if there was a possibility that we could just hold those down and have the officials come up with the right wording to ensure that the problems with the technical concerns are addressed.

We did that when we were doing the compulsory transmission licence. Surely we can do that with this now.

I urge my colleagues of the consequences. What's going to happen is these rights are going to go into the public domain. Copyrights will be lost December 31.

Á (1105)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The consequence is that the government is going to have to act without doing it this way.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You're going to punish the rights holders because the government--

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. We're in June now, not December.

The Chair: I really feel that members have a right to vote on the basis of something that is correct. If we have evidence now, confirmed by the officials, that these amendments are technically flawed, to take a vote on something that is incorrect, as to whether they should stay or shouldn't stay...I feel very uncomfortable about going with it, to tell you the truth. I would like to stay these amendments.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, I sense in your words that if I would move a motion to stand this, it would be accommodating. Then you could finish the rest of the bill and come back to this one at the end, having only that to worry about. I won't do it unless somebody coaches me and says that's what we want.

I'm a guest here. I won't disrupt the committee, but I think you should get everything else done and come back to this one after, knowing that's all you have left to do. There's no debate on standing a motion, so we could get to it right now.

The Chair: You are quite at liberty to move it, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I'll move it.

(Clauses 21 and 22 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Could we just proceed with the others then?

(Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 26)

The Chair: There is an amendment to clause 26, amendment G-3.

Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has two purposes dealt with respectively in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment. Amendments are proposed to the introductory passage of clause 30.5 of the Copyright Act and paragraph 30.5 (a) of this act, as proposed in Bill C-36.

With respect to the introductory passage of section 30.5 of the Copyright Act, the amendment attempts to ensure conformity between the proposed text of the introductory passage of section 30.5 of the Copyright Act and subclause 8(2) as proposed in the bill. You may remember that subclause 8(2) allows archivists to take representative samples from the Internet but only for the purposes of preservation.

So this paragraph contains a reference to the subclause. It allows for the ability to take samples for the purpose of preservation. The reader of the proposed text is unable to grasp the scope of this reference without consulting the Library and Archives of Canada Act and this amendment seeks to clarify that in the Copyright Act the exception granted by this paragraph is applicable only for the purpose of preservation. In this way the extent of the exception can be understood on consulting the Copyright Act without having to consult any other act.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have two questions, Mr. Chair.

I've always felt very uncomfortable with this, and I don't believe we've even had SOCAN in front of us to discuss it. It has to do with--

The Chair: What are we talking about now?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The amendment.

The Chair: This one?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It talks about recording. This is the downloading section--with all due respect.

Again, why are we passing this part of it? There is no time limit on this one. Why I'm quite concerned on keeping clause 21 in on the other one is because there's a time limit and rights will disappear after a certain time. But this particular one--and I've raised this in committee--has to do with clause 8 and whether or not we're downloading here.

I know you're saying we're not downloading here, but we haven't heard from SOCAN, and I'm concerned about it. So why is it okay to proceed with these copyright amendments when we're taking clauses 21 and 22 for discussion purposes?

I've always been concerned about this, because this relates back to subclause 8(2) and the sampling on the Internet. I don't think we've heard enough testimony on it. That's my opinion.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte, I think you're talking about--and Mr. Richstone or Madame Hébert will correct me if I'm wrong--the correlation between this amendment and this clause and subclause 8(2), which we have already passed. So I think we should have had this discussion under clause 8, but we passed clause 8.

I think this refers to clause 8. Is that correct, Mr. Richstone?

Á (1110)

Mr. Jeff Richstone: It's a strictly consequential amendment.

The Chair: Yes, it's a consequential amendment on clause 8.

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Remember I was asking questions earlier that if we move one, what is the impact on the others? I asked the question--

The Chair: There was no amendment to clause 8, so we passed that clause.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can I ask a question, nonetheless?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Was there anything in clause 8 that was not precipitated by a merger of the two institutions?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: It's not directly related to the merger. It's the modernization of other provisions.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't alert enough at the time to this, but I have to reiterate that this is a very dangerous thing we're doing here, amending piecemeal the copyright legislation. You know better than anyone in this room how complicated it is. To change one, to tweak it, means it may have repercussions, as Madame Bulte was saying, in areas we haven't thought of.

So I think as legislators it is incumbent upon us to have the total picture, and at this point we obviously don't.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just from the officials, to understand, taking clause 8 and then clause 26 together, is this a change of policy? In other words, is this simply a continuation of the existing policies of the library and archives, which are now captured in clause 8 and then reiterated consequentially in clause 26, or are we striking out in new directions here?

Ms. Andrée Delagrave: I don't think it's a new direction. Basically, it's an extension of the provisions that we have now to collect different pieces of the documented heritage of Canada. So it's just an adaptation, a modernization of that, but it is a new section.

In the consequential amendments proposed to section 30.5 of the Copyright Act, basically it's the concerns raised by some members of the committee that it should be very clear that this sampling of the Internet should be for preservation purposes only. That's what the consequential amendment to section 30.5 is trying to do.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Frulla.

Ms. Liza Frulla: By bringing the amendment saying we're adding for preservation purposes only, the only thing we're doing is answering what DAMIC and the Creators' Copyright Coalition asked us. It's saying in this law that we're referring to the copyright, and if it's not written in the copyright law you don't have the right to do it. They are comfortable saying we're referring to the copyright law and we are going to discuss it in the copyright law. That's the insurance needed to make sure nothing can be done outside of the actual copyright law, knowing we are going to discuss it extensively in the copyright law, which we're supposed to review starting September.

That's why they felt comfortable. DAMIC is comfortable with this. The Creators' Copyright Coalition feels comfortable with this. That's why putting this in is an insurance policy, and I feel comfortable with it.

The Chair: Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem with the proposed subclause 8(2) of the bill. At the present time, I believe that archivists do not go on to the Internet and do not have the right to take samples from it. In the light of the discussions we had previously, a number of years may elapse before we are in fact able to go on to the Internet and take samples of any document for preservation purposes. At the present time, they do not have the right to do so.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of what takes place in this sector. Things happen very quickly on the Internet and archivists wish to take samples for preservation purposes and they will take care to follow their usual practices in the dissemination of documents, they will ensure that copyright is respected. That is why it is solely for preservation purposes. I think that our archivists must also enter into the modern world. Internet exists, it is something we cannot deny. So I think it is normal to allow them to do this for preservation purposes.

Á (1115)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'm feeling very sorry here for the archives and the library because this bill is obviously becoming polluted. The initial intent was to merge these two institutions and give them a legislative framework, and I think this is going to degenerate...well, not degenerate, but transfer into a debate on copyright legislation, and the victims of this might end up being the archives and the library.

I feel saddened by this, because if we think the debate is going to end today, we have another think coming. There's going to be report stage, there is going to be third reading, and there will be any number of methods to prevent this from becoming law.

I beseech my colleagues that we should really--in fairness to the National Archives and the National Library--separate these two issues. They have to be dealt with by Parliament in any event. The urgency I can understand. The deadline of December for the rights that would cease to exist is real, and nothing this committee does will change the fact that it has to go to Parliament, to both Houses. So that debate is just going to be polluted and made much more confusing, and unnecessarily so.

I think this committee has a great opportunity to clarify this bill and separate the two issues. One is the merger and the legislative framework of the merged institutions, which is what I thought we should be doing. The other is copyright legislation, with all its intricacies and complexities, which we're obviously just touching upon. I would urge my colleagues to really seriously consider this, because this is going to get amplified when it gets to the House.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

We have before us an amendment to clause 26, which has been presented by the parliamentary secretary acting for the government. Are we prepared to vote on it?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 27)

The Chair: There is an amendment by the Canadian Alliance. Does anybody want to move the amendment? If nobody is prepared to move the amendment, the amendment is not proposed.

(Clause 27 agreed to)

The Chair: I should mention to members that clauses 28 to 57 are clauses that reflect correspondence with various acts of the government--the Parliament of Canada Act, the Pension Act, the Privacy Act, etc. If members agree, clauses 28 to 57 can be taken in one vote.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to point out, you do have an Alliance amendment for a clause at the end?

Did we get rid of two?

Á (1120)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Neither has been moved.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay, I was just checking.

The Chair: I would like to offer a correction, because clause 57 refers to clauses 21 and 22, which have been stood.

(Clauses 28 to 56 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I'll wait until you're finished.

The Chair: I was going to suggest that we stand clauses 21, 22 and 57.

(Clause 21)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In view of the discussions, I could move an amendment to clause 21 in order to make certain clarifications. Because several members of this committee are uncomfortable with the idea of not providing authors with this protection, and in view of the fact that the legislation expires at the end of the year, I have here a text to amend clause 21. I could read it to members of the committee and then move it, in view of the discussions. I had resigned myself to it but I am ready to...

Clause 21 of the bill would say that subsections 7(2) to (4) of the Copyright Act are replaced by the following: “Works public before December 31, 1998.”

The second paragraph would be to add subsection (2) which would read as follows:

(2) Subsection (1) applies only in respect of that work that had been published, performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication, as the case may be, before December 31, 1998.

It would then continue with “works not public before December 31, 1998...”

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Is a written copy of the amendment available?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Can we have copies?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I must say I admire you because I personally I am not able to follow.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have it in both languages.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay, let's have it in writing.

The Chair: I just want to know from members, are you prepared to stay to deal with clauses 21 and 22? That's a big question. It's 25 minutes after 11, and some of us have....

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for the photocopies, we could perhaps ask Mr. Richstone to give us some clarifications about the proposed amendments to clause 21.

The Chair: Committee members should have the text.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could we also have the original text of the Copyright Act?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: I have a copy in English and in French. The clerk could have copies made.

The Chair: I suggest that we suspend for five minutes while the copies are being made.

Á (1130)

[English]

The meeting is suspended for five minutes.

Á (1124)

Á (1131)

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, can we announce that recess is over?

The Chair: Unfortunately we don't yet have the documents.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Are we waiting for the photocopies?

[English]

The Chair: We'll resume the meeting.

[Translation]

We are waiting for the copies that are being sorted out.

[English]

We're just looking for the copies, which the clerk is sorting out.

While we're waiting for the copies,

[Translation]

Ms. Allard, I want to make sure I understand. First of all, you wish to strike out clause 21. Is that correct?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes.

The Chair: As I understand it, you will now be moving an amendment and keeping clause 21, which will be the subject of your amendment. Is that correct?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Following the discussions held by the committee members, I conclude that people are in fact afraid that these works will not be subject to protection.

The Chair: So then you will be maintaining the clause but moving an amendment to it.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes, an amendment to clause 21.

The Chair: Now I understand. Is the purpose of this amendment to correct the technical flaws that we discussed with Mr. Richstone?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Exactly.

The Chair: If I understand correctly,

[English]

this is the text of the relevant section of the Copyright Act--

Mr. Jeff Richstone: As it stands now.

The Chair: As it stands today.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Just in case someone like Mr. Bélanger asks what 7 looks like now, this is section 7 in both the French and English columns.

The Chair: When members look at subsection 7(1), it's the text of the present....

[Translation]

Ms. Allard, if you wish, you can, with the help of Mr. Richstone, sum up the purpose and the effects of your amendment. We have the text.

Á (1135)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes. Would you like me to read the text?

The Chair: No, we have the text. Mr. Richstone can give us some clarification.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes, we do have the text.

The Chair: Mr. Richstone.

[English]

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The draft the members see before them is a redraft of section 7 as it presently reads in subsections (2) to (4).

The idea was that once the IPIC had made the submission to the chair that there was a technical flaw in one of the subsections, people should take a second look at the existing clauses proposed in the bill and the sections in the Copyright Act. It was suggested that perhaps a better drafting, for all purposes of readers and users of the Copyright Act, would be to put in all of section 7.

For example, right now in subsection 7(2)--and members may have a copy of the act as it exists now--there is mention of “before the coming into force of this section”. It's also in subsection 7(3), which would not be touched by Bill C-36 as it looked at first reading.

The idea was if we're going to correct a technical flaw in one subsection, perhaps it's a better idea to look at the whole section as it stands, clean up certain portions, and put in actual dates for when the section came into force. It wasn't fair to readers. A number of people say this is an act that is used by many people, not simply lawyers and practitioners, and they would have to go to the official Canada Gazette to find out when the official coming into force date was. That wasn't fair. Since the clause is presently before the committee, and the clause needed to be corrected, the idea is, why not do a complete correction of the provision and put in all the dates as they should be?

The purpose of the proposed subsection 7(2) is really not to change what subsection 7(2) is in the current act, except that it adds a date. The new subsection 7(3) as proposed in the motion collapses all the rules dealing with unpublished works that were not published before December 31, 1998. All those rules are now collected in this proposed subsection 7(3). It adds in paragraph (a) what is presently, I think, proposed subsection 7(4) in clause 21. Paragraph (b) puts in what is proposed subsection 7(5) of clause 21. Paragraph (c) puts in what is now subsection 7(3) of the Copyright Act.

The idea is to put all those rules in one provision. There is a dividing line, as you can see. The marginal note says, “Works not public before December 31, 1998”. If the work has not been published before December 31, 1998, you can look within the proposed subsection 7(3) and find all the pertinent rules with actual dates. There's no reference to a coming into force date; it's an actual date there. People can actually see what is in there.

I would like to emphasize before the committee that there is no substantive change in either the current act or what is before you, with one exception, that being to correct the particular technical flaw that was raised by IPIC in its submission.

If I can make it very clear, the technical flaw was that it wasn't clear in the proposed subsection 7(5) that if a work had been published before December 31, 1998, it had a 50-year protection anyway. The way it was drafted, it was as if there were two periods of protection--one of 20 years and one of 50 years.

However, the Copyright Act had already stated that if the work had been published, even by an author who had died before a certain date--if it had been published before that threshold date of December 31--it had already received the 50-year term of protection.

So the proposed redraft corrects that technical flaw, adds actual dates so that readers can know exactly how to situate themselves, and makes very clear that we're dealing with a dividing line--that dividing line being December 31, 1998. All the rules as you see them in either the act or in the bill have been consolidated, if you like, in this new version.

Á (1140)

The Chair: I've been reminded of an issue that could affect our discussions here, and I think in fairness it has to be brought before you.

I understand, and the parliamentary secretary actually referred to it but not specifically, that there has been an understanding with the official opposition that they would agree--and this is why they're not here today; they feel comfortable about the bill going through because there's been a commitment made to them through their representative, Mr. Strahl--that clauses 21 and 22 be dropped. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, you will remember that the official opposition stated at one point that this looked like a grab bag. I didn't agree but over the course of our discussions, we attempted to come up with some accommodation and I referred to clauses 21 and 22. I believe that you are aware of the statement of the Canadian Alliance to the effect that it agreed with the substance of the bill, and that its role was to move amendments. As a matter of fact, Mr. Abbott did move some amendments for certain sections affecting us today, I think... Excuse me, I'm mistaken.

The opposition members were free to be here today and to hear what my colleagues had to say about certain fears expressed by people in possession of works and who may lose their copyright. In view of the urgency of the situation and in consideration of the arguments advanced by committee members this morning, we may assume that if they had been here to listen, they might have agreed with us adopting clause 21. However they are not present and those who are absent are always wrong. How can we know what their reaction would be? There is an opposition member present, Mr. Schellenberger, who...

The Chair: I think, Ms. Allard, that the committee members here, who did not take part in this discussion between yourself and the Canadian Alliance, are entitled to decide as they see fit. Moreover, in light of the fact that this discussion was held and that you reached an agreement that these clauses would not be put forward, I would suggest that you get in touch with Mr. Strahl after the meeting to explain to him that the members who were not present at the discussion decided that they wanted to discuss the amendment and deal with it as they choose. I do not know what decision will be made, but I think it would be a good idea to do that to avoid any problems later in the House of Commons.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I will be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chair I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you have, I must admit I came to this meeting with the understanding from you, sir, and from the parliamentary secretary that these two would be dropped. I came in good faith because we had that discussion; that is why I'm sticking to my position and will continue to do so. But I think your chairmanship, sir, is one that is very valued by this committee, and I'm very happy you brought this up. I think it had to be put on the table as you did.

The Chair: I put it on the table, in fact, because you specifically asked me about clauses 21 and 22, and I told you the parliamentary secretary had conducted discussions and that the idea was that clauses 21 and 22 be dropped. At the same time, I can also see that members who were not part of this discussion and never raised it with me or the parliamentary secretary have their complete right to deal with them as they see fit today. Then we'll go where that goes.

Mr. Schellenberger.

Á (1145)

Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I came under the same pretext. I was even briefed earlier on, and I've had quite a concern with clauses 21 and 22. I understand I'm the only member from the opposition here, and I don't want to be used as a pawn. So I sit here with the same intention, that clauses 21 and 22 would be withdrawn, and if it means that I withdraw, I will do that.

Again, I say I'm not going to be used as a pawn. If that deal was made with the Alliance, I look at that. I also look at this particular thing as it came through the Copyright Act in 1997. If five years was good enough then, I don't see why we'd change the thing today. If the Copyright Act didn't protect people at that particular time, what are we doing today?

One of the reasons I did come is I was briefed on that originally, and it's part of my reason for sitting here. I'd like to see--

The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger, let me say this. First of all, I didn't know you had been contacted about clauses 21 and 22. You certainly are not here as a pawn, I can assure you of that. In fact, I made sure that the opposition would be represented by as many members as possible. The Alliance members told me they couldn't come; this was their own decision. I made sure my office contacted Mrs. Girard-Bujold to make sure she would be here, because she had amendments, and we would give her all the latitude.

As you can see, we stayed the amendments. But you are master of your own decisions. If you have been part of this and you feel strongly about it, it's very obvious that if you withdraw, then the debate collapses and we go home.

At the same time, in fairness to the other members who were not part of this discussion--Mrs. Bulte wasn't part of it, nor the others here--I feel they have a right to decide as they see fit.

Let's go on that basis. If you decide you feel strongly enough to withdraw, I'll understand that. Members are free to decide the way they want.

Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things about being on a committee is that we listen to each other and listen to evidence and make decisions as a result of that. New evidence or new information came to light during this meeting such that I would say we would be breaching our obligation as parliamentarians, as people who are here to protect the rights of people who need to have their rights protected, to say “I made a deal.”

I didn't make a deal. Nobody briefed me about any deal. I'm here to listen and to learn. When I hear and find out from discussions that happened that we're not going to have anything happen until December 31; that these people's rights, their livelihoods--they are creators; we're supposed to be the protectors of people--are going to be allowed to lapse, then with all due respect, I think because we've made a deal, then it's a very poor deal we've made, with all due respect. I think we're breaching our responsibilities as legislators.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I don't totally agree with you. We also have to protect the rights of researchers and people who want access to the information, but I think for everyone who is here it's a free Parliament. One should vote the way one feels--Mr. Schellenberger and Mr. Bélanger--either vote for or against. What we're here for is to make decisions. We've heard more information, and it's parliamentarians' responsibility to listen to all the information and then just make the best decision they can.

I don't think anyone's here under any obligation to vote one way or another. We should just discuss it and vote.

The Chair: Madame Frulla.

Ms. Liza Frulla: It is the same thing for me. I wasn't part of that deal. I had new information today. I wasn't comfortable about this last week. As I said, better safe than sorry for those who.... It's not much, but at least we're protecting authors, and we're not damaging the researchers that much, really, to be honest. It's only that if you buy anything, you pay a right. Authors should have the same respect as people who invent something.

I thought we could amend it. But for December, in another context, it's “iffy”. Because of that I'll say fine, I'll go with it. I would have preferred discussing it with the copyright law, but with the new information I have, I feel comfortable to vote for it now.

Is it the perfect context? No, it's not, but as I said, better safe than sorry. That's why I'm doing it. But there's no “deal”; there was no deal with me either.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is my final intervention, Mr. Chair, if I may.

When I was asked to come to lend my support to the bill, I expressed a reservation about what I've already talked about--this cross-fertilization, if you will, of the intent of merging two institutions with amendments to the copyright legislation. I will stick to my commitment of being here; I'm not going to walk out. That's point number one.

I will not support this amendment. I will not support clauses 21 and 22, because I don't believe for a single minute the argument I've just heard that it's “better safe than sorry”.

Whether this bill is dealt with or another bill the government was to introduce were to be dealt with, both are dependent upon the House still sitting and the session not being prorogued. The government has seven months--or six and a half, to be precise--in which to act and to seek the advice and the sanction of the legislative body.

I would urge the government that it cease doing it in this manner, because this is not fair to parliamentarians and it is not fair to those who have an interest in copyright legislation, on both sides of the issue.

The Chair: Now, Madame Allard, it's nearly 12 o'clock. We have to decide whether to move on. Okay?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I feel uncomfortable moving the amendment, because I had given my word to a number of people. If this makes the members of the committee feel ill at ease, I will withdraw my amendment and move that we vote on clauses 21 and 22, as we had originally planned to do.

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I do not feel uncomfortable moving the amendment, because if I must vote on something, I want to vote on the best possible version. I will therefore move the amendment, to alleviate my colleague's moral reservations.

The Chair: In any case, unanimous consent is required in order to withdraw an amendment.

[English]

You need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment; I doubt very much you'll get it. You can ask for it.

In any case, Mr. Godfrey proposes the amendment, so the amendment will stand unless there's unanimous consent to withdraw it. Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. John Godfrey: No.

The Chair: There isn't, so we'll have to proceed with the amendment. The amendment to clause 21 as presented by Madame Allard and also secondly by Mr. Godfrey is before you. We'll vote on it; we've had a long discussion.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Now we're going to take clause 21 as amended. If you feel very strongly one way or another, this is the time to do it. You either vote for it or vote against it.

Shall clause 21 as amended carry?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I am abstaining.

[English]

The Chair: And who is contrary-minded?

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Now we look at clause 22.

(On clause 22)

Á (1155)

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Clause 22 results directly from clause 21, Mr. Chairman. There's not really an amendment here. If clause 21 is adopted, we must adopt clause 22 as proposed.

The Chair: There is no amendment to clause 22.

An Hon. Member: No.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: That is correct.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Question.

The Chair: I'll call clause 22.

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(Clause 57 agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title of the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bonin is not entitled to vote, because we have two individuals replacing the same person. So we will say that Mr. Bonin will not be entitled to vote.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, I am not entitled to vote because someone made a mistake, and I have wasted my whole morning here.

The Chair: Yes, I apologize, Mr. Bonin.

[English]

(Bill C-36 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.