HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 29, 2003

¿

0930

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

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

The Chair

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

¿

0935

¿

0940

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Mr. Jean Guérette

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean Guérette

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

¿

0950

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

¿

0955

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

À

1000

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Guérette

À

1005

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Guérette

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean Guérette

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Jean Guérette

À

1010

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Jean Guérette

Ms. Liza Frulla

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Ms. Liza Frulla

À

1015

Mr. Jean Guérette

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

À

1020

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

À

1025

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jean Guérette

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bruce Stockfish (Director General, Copyright Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage)

À

1030

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bruce Stockfish

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

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

Mr. Chuck Strahl

À

1035

Mr. Bruce Stockfish

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jeff Richstone

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 041

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0930)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[English]

    We've had a reference from the House of Commons regarding Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act and certain acts in consequence.

    We apologize for the delay.

[Translation]

    We are happy to have with us today Ms. Andrée Delagrave, who is Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada; Mr. Jean Guérette, Executive Director, Portfolio Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage; Mr. Patrick O'Reilly, Director, Policy, Planning and Resourcing; Mr. Bruce Stockfish, Director General, Copyright Policy; and Mr. Jeff Richstone, General Counsel. Hello everyone.

[English]

    Welcome, Ms. Delagrave. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave (Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): I will start very simply. You already introduced the members of the committee. Since this is a technical briefing, we had planned for my colleague, Jean Guérette, to give an overview of the bill, after which, we could all answer your questions.

    The Chair: Fine

    Mr. Guérette.

    Mr. Jean Guérette (Executive Director, Portfolio Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First, I would like to specify the purpose of our presentation. As Ms. Delagrave was saying, I will be giving you a general overview of the bill establishing the Library and Archives of Canada.

    The purpose of the new Library and Archives of Canada bill is found in the preamble, and has been incorporated into the bill itself: preserve the documentary heritage of Canada for present and future generations; be a source of enduring knowledge about Canada, accessible to all, contributing to the cultural, social, and economic advancement of Canada as a free and democratic society, be the continuing memory of the institutions of the Government of Canada, facilitate cooperation among communities involved in the promotion and preservation of the documentary heritage of Canada.

    There have been extensive consultations regarding the name of the new institution. The idea was to find a name to designate this new institution that was a merger of two already well-known institutions. No new name really emerged. We decided to simply recognize that we were creating an institution that combined two founding institutions. The name the majority of those who were consulted supported was that of the Library and Archives of Canada.

    The same question was asked regarding the name of the head of this new institution. The most logical name to give this person, to recognize the nature of the institution, was that of Librarian and Archivist of Canada.

[English]

    With regard to the legislation itself, we're not starting from scratch. What you see in front of you is something that in fact draws quite extensively on the two pieces of legislation that were in place before. The proposed legislation builds on the mandate and powers found in the existing National Archives of Canada Act and the National Library Act.

    Maybe we can focus a little bit on what the new elements are that we're bringing into the legislation. One of the main thrusts is to harmonize and modernize the language and the legal concepts applying to the institution. It requires the harmonization of the overall mandate while maintaining distinct definitions for two key concepts of the previous acts.

    Basically, “records” were what applied to archives; “books” were with regard to the library. In order to harmonize that, the legislation introduces a new concept, which is documentary heritage — a broader concept encompassing both “records” and “publications”, replacing the previous terminology “book” with somewhat of a broader element.

    Fundamentally what is happening is the legislation uses technology-neutral language that allows for the continuing development and advancement of technology. I think we've gone through this type of idea before. I remember when we did the Broadcasting Act. We had similar provisions to allow for technology to evolve without making the legislation itself obsolete.

    With regard to the acquisition of the documentary heritage, basically the same powers that existed in the two legislations are brought into this legislation and would continue to apply if these records are books, depending on what they were applying to before. There are no major changes there. Basically there are many ways in which the Library and Archives do acquire documentation. The five principal ones that were in place will continue to be there. One is the purchase or donation of publications and private records.

    They are also acquired through administrative agreements. When we talk about administrative agreements, a good example relates to the kinds of provisions that are made in some programs, for instance, the Canadian Feature Film Fund. When a film is funded, when government does provide some financial assistance to a film, you can make it a requirement of that funding that the film itself be made available for preservation and reference.

    There's acquisition of archival-quality copies of audio-visual material. That's on the records side. That is done basically with compensation of reproduction costs under the National Archives of Canada Act and that will continue in this act.

    There's also the transfer of government records because that's basically one of the key functions of the archives. Now with the new institution of the Library and Archives to maintain the government records, that power will continue to exist.

    Finally, on that provision, there's a legal deposit of publications that in fact will have some modernized language, and I will come back to that issue of legal deposit very shortly.

    The new element here is with regard to the Internet, and it simply allows the archivist to be able to do some sampling of what is available on the Internet for preservation purposes.

    When we're talking about the legal deposit regime, we are talking about modernizing that regime. The bill modernizes the existing requirements, allowing the current and future development of technology. The regulatory power provides the flexibility to deal sensibly with various kinds of material over time. The act continues the legal deposit regime for traditional and electronic publications. However, the act makes explicit the inclusion of publications distributed online. We're referring to e-books or e-journals, for instance, that are published electronically.

    What we're saying is that the act will make it explicit that they are covered by this regime. Currently, it is recognized that these types of publications are in fact subject to legal deposit, but it is more implicit than explicit. Since we're altering and revising the act, it is an opportunity to make this a very explicit requirement. In fact, the regulations power that does exist and will continue to exist will be utilized to refine, for instance, how that legal deposit will apply to various elements.

    I'll just use an example. We usually require that two copies of a book be provided for preservation and reference purposes. In the case of an e-book, we're not certain that it may require two copies; maybe one copy would be sufficient. These are the kinds of details that can be clarified through regulations as the system evolves.

¿  (0935)  

    I'll come back now to the sampling of the Internet. This is a new provision. The Library and Archives may on a periodic basis perform a comprehensive snapshot of material on websites that is of interest to Canada and is accessible to the public without restriction.

    This is not an unlimited availability of the archivist to simply go and take products on the Internet that are not accessible freely to the public. This is limited to what is available there for the general public and that therefore he can access for preservation purposes.

    This new power is not something that is new. For us it's new, but it has been considered elsewhere and already it exists in other countries. We have examples of Sweden, Denmark, and New Zealand where similar powers are in place, and they are also being proposed in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and France.

[Translation]

    The Library and Archives of Canada will also play a more important national role. Partnerships will be given a particular emphasis to reach Canadians more directly.

    The legislation provides an increased capacity to better serve Canadians where they live my making explicit the power to enter into agreements and partnerships to preserve and make more accessible the documentary heritage of Canada. For example, reaching Canadians directly through networks of over 21,000 libraries and the development of national services such as the Canadian archival information network and AMICUS, systems that are already in place. These partnerships with all Canadian libraries will allow the institution to reach Canadians more easily.

    The bill will also allow the institution to play a more visible role across Canada by partnering with other institutions and organizations such as museums, galleries, universities, schools, the Library of Parliament and other public bodies, and by contributing to the development of educational and life long learning material. In a nutshell, the institution will play a greater role in promoting Canada's documentary heritage thanks to explicit powers regarding exhibitions, programs, publications and performances.

    An advisory council may be appointed by the minister to advise the Librarian and Archivist of Canada on ways to making known and facilitating access to the documentary heritage of Canada.

¿  (0940)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I did not understand the last sentence. You were talking about the role of...

    Mr. Jean Guérette: I was saying that a new provision in the legislation would allow for the creation of an advisory council that would advise the librarian and the archivist.

¿  (0945)  

[English]

    Concerning the role of management of government information, the new institution will continue the existing role to coordinate libraries in federal institutions and provide support for the library community. That aspect will be maintained.

    The legislation continues existing roles and responsibilities for facilitating the management of information by government institutions and for being the sole authority with the power to authorize the disposition of any federal government records, including destruction. That's basically the archivist's role — to maintain the records of government.

    The new provision in the legislation is an additional power that will be given to the head to intervene to request the transfer of records when they are determined to be at risk, such as improper storage. In fact the archivist will have the ability to look in departments or wherever the information is. If the librarian and archivist feels that those are at risk, he can intervene. In fact it could simply be to encourage the institution to place it in better storage or to protect it. If that's not the case, then he can in fact take action to take possession of the records, to bring it under his responsibility.

    You've also seen — and I know, because most of you referred to it when you were discussing this in second reading — that there are some relevant copyright amendments that are being brought forward. These are complex and hard to explain, but we could come back to it if in fact there are more questions. I think most people do seem to understand what we're talking about.

    Before the legislation that was passed in 1997 — it was known at the time as Bill C-32 — before that date, unpublished work had unlimited protection forever. New provisions were introduced at that time, establishing that from then on unpublished work would be treated in a similar manner to published work, in the sense that those works would be protected for 50 years after the death of the author. Whether they were published or unpublished, it was 50 years.

    Obviously that was quite a change. Where the complexity came about was with regard to the transition of those who had died prior to that. The rules applied to those who had previously unlimited protection and were now being limited.

    What is being done here is to simply make some minor adjustments for two specific cases. In order to bring fairness, a group of all the parties who had an interest in this worked together and came up with a proposal that the term of copyright protection, which was to expire at the end of this year, for those who had died in a specific period, between 1929 and 1949, be extended by another 14 years. It clarifies that if in fact they publish in that period, the published work would have another 20 years of protection from the date of the publication, whenever that publication did occur.

    Similarly, for those who died prior to 1929, the period for publication would not be extended beyond the end of this year. But it is provided that if in fact their works were published within that five-year period, the 20 years of copyright protections would also apply to them.

    Those are basically the changes taking place, and that pretty well ends my presentation, Mr. Chairman. We're open for specific questions with regard to the legislation.

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Guérette.

    Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, and thank you for coming to discuss this bill. As you saw in the House, it wasn't hugely controversial, although probably librarians and archivists were thrilled to see a little bit of news coverage about this whole thing over the last little while. As you know, you guys go about your work and do it well, but how often do you get in the headlines, right? So archivists are hot right now, and that's good.

    I have a few questions on this. One is that in the briefing notes we received from Heritage Canada they suggested that when we put these two organizations together in this bill they don't foresee any savings in bringing the organizations under one aegis. They said it would continue as is, with two silos. It seems to me there should be some cost savings involved in it. You'd think that you'd have human resources savings, management savings, building savings. I would think if that is the case that you'd be flogging it pretty heavy as one of the reasons why this needs to happen.

    Mr. Jean Guérette: Mr. Chair, I think the person who is in fact responsible for bringing this transition together is probably the best person to answer that question: Ms. Delagrave.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: I think at the outset this exercise was not envisioned as a cost-saving exercise. What it is about is creating a new knowledge institution to better serve Canadians in the 21st century.

    Secondly, I think it's no secret that the two organizations have been relatively cash poor for a long time. They were severely hit by budget cuts in the 1990s and probably have never really recovered from those cuts while the collections were growing.

    Thirdly, you are quite right, savings usually occur in a merger on internal services. But these services have been together for a very long time for most of them and for a couple of years for information technology. So human resources, financial services, information technology, even some preservation services have been together, have been serving both institutions.

    What I think is going to happen is there will be more efficiencies. We will be able to serve Canadians better from the same resources. There will be a critical mass of expertise and skills that will be better used to provide a more integrated, better, easier access. But the savings are probably in terms of efficiencies plus value in the long term. In the short term there are costs to putting the two institutions together, such as merging systems, merging databases, providing common user cards, integrating our Internet sites, etc.

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Heritage Canada documents also mention costs — I think it said $7.5 million for the costs. I think there was $15 million awarded in the 2003 budget for short-term protection of documents and artifacts. This is a different envelope of money?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Actually, $7.5 million was set aside in the last budget to help the two institutions integrate together, to pay for the cost of drafting legislation and regulations, putting systems and databases together, consulting with stakeholders and staff, etc.

    The $15 million was set aside specifically for preservation purposes, to ensure we have a short-term solution for the most immediate needs, for collections at risk, and also to have the funds to do long-term planning, to really look for a good, viable long-term solution for the preservation of the collections.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to follow that up a little bit, there has been, it seems, a fair squabble going on between Public Works and the National Archives about new facilities, or moving while other facilities are repaired, or whatever. I am wondering if this bill isn't putting the cart before the horse.

    It seems that when you're doing something of this magnitude, the whole thing has to all work at once. You're building an organization. You also need the buildings. You also have the archives that go in the buildings, and right now it is no secret that the building you have is inadequate. It needs repairs. I don't know if it needs expansion, but the roof needs to quit leaking, mostly, and so on. But you have this new bill. Is it putting the cart before the horse? Are you going to get a new building? Is it necessary to go hand in hand with this new organization or not?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: That's what we are trying to do. We are trying to get a proper sequence between our transformation or integration into one institution and to define our accommodation needs. You will be pleased to hear that Public Works is going to start working on the roof next month.

    But through our transformation work we also have to plan for proper accommodations. That's probably a combination of good public access here in Ottawa, plus making sure the collections are properly stored and the people working with the collections can work with them. At this point we have collections all over and they are mostly carried by trucks.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: So you are confident that this can be managed?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Yes, it will be. It's a matter of finding the proper sequencing between our integration and new accommodations and renovating existing accommodations.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do you have an official plan on how that is going to work? Is there a timeline wherein the new legislation comes into effect, a new management system looks like this, in this building with these facilities? Do you have that kind of a — 

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: We don't have a formal plan. This is what we are discussing with Public Works at this time.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That seems unusual to me. I know this has been going on for a long time, and I don't know how — it's always puzzled me — you folks manage this, to deal with basic issues on the facility and the legislation, without some sort of a timeline chart.

    Things are changing. Big changes are afoot. Everyone would like to know what's happening. They're saying, I'm a manager in the system and I would like to know whether I'm going to have enough office space to manage the system, enough archival space to put it all together. It seems to me that while perhaps it doesn't have to happen at once, the chart, the plan, the management of it, has to happen at once.

¿  (0955)  

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: This is exactly what we are discussing with Public Works, trying to put this plan together and understanding the requirements, understanding our requirements, our transformation, integrating our staff, redesigning a structure, and making all this work to create a great new institution.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's good. I am a little puzzled, I must say, as to how you can do that without having all the ducks in a row to start. I know “ducks in a row” isn't an archival term, but I mean to have it all planned at once. Otherwise, it's like you're saying, “We are going to go ahead with this; this is great legislation. We don't know where we are going to live, how we are going to manage it, or how it's going to actually come together, but we are in negotiations.”

    It seems to me that the better way to do it is to have a plan in place whereby Public Works is onside and the minister understands what's happening, as does everyone down the line, until you get to a date when it's all going to come together.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Yes. Again, that's what we are working at, developing this plan. I fully agree with you that we need this plan.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's good. It's hard to see where this legislation plugs into that plan because there is no plan to look at. So for us, it's not that we have to manage it, but it's just nice to know, or it would be nice to know, when there's money involved, 1,000 people, employees, important work, what the grand plan is and how this is part of the grand plan. It's hard to be as enthusiastic as we might want to be along those lines.

    Maybe I should turn it over. I had other questions, more on that legislation.

    The Chair: We will come back to you, Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Strahl's remarks and your replies will be in the public transcript, so maybe that can gravitate to the powers that be at Public Works so that they will hear you loud and clear.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: I think you will have a better opportunity also to ask those questions of the witnesses.

    The Chair: Yes. Mr. Carrier and Mr. Wilson will be here.

    Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It seems that the Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de documentation was rather lukewarm to the idea of merging these two organizations. It said that the Library and the Archives each had their own role and that merging these two mandates would cause some problems in terms of consistency. Do you have anything to add to reassure us about this potential problem?

    I have received letters from several university libraries mentioning the deposit of publications and saying that it would become more complicated for the user to access this material. What will be the approach under the new legislation and what was done before? What is the reason for changing this apparently more effective relationship?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Allow me to answer your first question. I think that ASTED may not have understood exactly what we are trying to do. In our consultations, we consulted ASTED and all the other library and archives associations and generally, everyone strongly supported the merger.

    There is no question of merging the archivist and librarian professions. Both professions have their place in the new institution and certainly are going to continue to exercise their functions. However, the more we headed toward virtual information and new technologies, the more difficult, even absurd, it became to distinguish between the information handled by librarians and that handled by archivists. We also had to recognize that Canadians were not interested in knowing whether information came from the National Library or the National Archives. They wanted to have easy access to integrated information. That is the purpose of this merger. You will probably have the opportunity to ask the national librarian and the national archivist questions about this, because it is their plan and their vision. ASTED may have misunderstood this aspect of things.

    As for your second question, I am not sure I understood it. Are you talking about the Depository Services Program? Fine.

    The Depository Services Program was established in 1927 to distribute federal government information through a network of libraries that are the depositories; some depositories receive everything and others can place an order. The materials were distributed first by the Queen's Printer, then by Public Works and now by Communication Canada. I think that the librarians are concerned about the future of the program and are suggesting that it be transferred to the National Library for now and to the Library and Archives of Canada later to ensure stability.

    I think that is essentially what they are asking. I have been in talks for several months with Communication Canada and Treasury Board to find the best way to distribute government publications to Canadians in order to ensure that the libraries and departments which publish documents receive the best possible service in a way that maximizes efficiency and synergy in the system.

    I think the talks are going well, but this is the government.

À  (1000)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: May I ask another question?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I read the Quebec National Library Act, which is much more explicit about the various appointments. Here, there is what you call the advisory council whose members are appointed by the minister. Do you not think it would be appropriate to have better parameters for these appointments, similar to what was done at the Quebec National Library, to ensure that the people who are appointed have librarian or archivist training? I do not know whether you have read the Quebec National Library Act.

    There is also a provision on conflict of interest whereby peopled mandated by the minister have parameters for certain conflicts of interest. You told me earlier, Mr. Guérette, that the advisory council would advise the librarian and archivist on how to promote heritage. If we do not provide parameters for appointments — Today we have to be more transparent and ensure that these people reflect —  They have to reflect diversity. This is too broad. It seems to me we should provide more parameters for these appointments within the bill. Such parameters exist in the Quebec National Library Act. I would like to know your thoughts on this matter.

    Mr. Jean Guérette: With your permission, I will try to answer this question.

    First, the advisory council in question is different from an institutional board of directors. With regard to the board's administrative structure, the bill proposes to simply maintain the status quo. These are departmental agencies. As a result, there will not be a board of directors. What is being proposed, as you said yourself, is an advisory council that does not provide guidelines or directions to the institution; its role is limited to informing the head of the agency about the public programming that the agency can and must administer.

    As for representation, the idea is to ensure sufficient flexibility so as to be able to select individuals who properly reflect the concerns put forward. It is precisely a matter of finding professionals in archives administration and library sciences. It is also a matter of finding professionals working in institutions that are interested in the services and partnerships that the Library and Archives intend to offer.

    It is a matter, for example, of appealing to museum directors and generating interest, in collaboration with the Library and Archives, in improving this programming for the benefit of Canadians. The bill makes mention of a council that would reflect Canadian diversity.

À  (1005)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You are saying that the bill refers to one thing or another, but it makes no mention of them. You also say that you are going to seek people out. Would it not have been better to say that the advisory council must seek expertise in such and such a field? It is not very explicit; as I was saying, it is very vague.

    We would like to see a certain diversity. Obviously, I have not had time to study this bill in great depth, and I understand that you are showing a great deal of good will by doing these things — and I think that you will, in fact, do them — but it would be reassuring to see this kind of good will set out in the bill. Where is this good will coming from?

    Mr. Jean Guérette: In fact, if the bill were more explicit in this regard, it would also set limitations. I was saying that the way it is currently worded allows enough flexibility so that, when appointments are made, it is possible to obtain the best elements to ensure the best possible balance of the desired types of expertise. In fact, the bill's wording seeks such flexibility.

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Guérette, you mentioned earlier that the bill anticipated changes to the regime for legal deposit. Not everyone is clear on this concept.

    Are editors obligated to deposit a copy of each book published in Canada? Does the bill change anything for authors or editors? Will these sectors be affected?

    The Chair: Ms. Delagrave.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: In fact, this modernizes the regime for legal deposits. Legal deposits are central to the activities of all national libraries throughout the world. The terminology has been modernized; for example, the famous book has become a publication to provide for virtual publications.

    There will be minor amendments to the regulations. For example, it must be determined if editions of 100 or 101 copies will become the benchmark for having one copy or two. Generally, this will ensure the regime's continuation and modernization.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Are you saying that you intend to ensure that anything published in Canada must be archived so as to protect the cultural heritage for future generations?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: That is essentially the purpose of the regime for legal deposit, and this will no doubt continue. It will be more explicit and modern.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you, Ms. Delagrave.

    The Chair: Ms. Frulla, do you have a question?

    Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): I am sorry I was late: I was at the Standing Committee on Transport.

    Perhaps you already explained the purpose of this merger. What is the purpose of merging the National Archives and the National Library? Is the purpose to gain better control of our common Canadian heritage or to make this heritage more accessible?

    Mr. Jean Guérette: I did address this question during my presentation, but I can elaborate.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: It may be repetitive.

    Mr. Jean Guérette: No, it will not be repetitive. I will go over certain essential elements again. We will still be working toward the objectives of both institutions. We are talking about preserving Canada's documentary heritage according to today's definition, and modernizing things.

    You are quite right to say that there also is an objective of making this heritage more available to Canadians and more explicitly so, through partnerships and programming. That will enable us to ensure that Canadians have better access to the documentary heritage available within this institution and take more interest in it.

À  (1010)  

    Ms. Liza Frulla: There is the traditional documentary heritage, but there is also the issue of new technologies. Are you dealing with that as well?

    Mr. Jean Guérette: Yes. For example, there are new provisions for sampling what is on the Internet. We want to make this legislation technology-neutral, so that it will remain relevant and so that the means at our disposal can adapt to new technology, in whatever direction technology evolves.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: I suppose that if there is a bill before us to merge the two institutions, it is because there was a pressing need. After all, it cannot be done overnight. Why was it so urgent to merge the institutions?

    Second, I am concerned that neither one of the institutions should be penalized, that the balance between them should be maintained. When each of them has its own incorporating legislation and some people work for one institution and some for the other, both of them are fully preserved. It often happens in a merger that one institution takes on more importance than the other, and the latter is weakened.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: I think you will find better answers to this question when the national archivist and the national librarian come to testify, since this bill represents their vision. It is not a merger being imposed from outside: it is the vision of the two heads.

    But I can tell you now that, basically, the Library and the Archives have common roles, namely to acquire, preserve and organize publications and documents and make them accessible. Therefore, the activities of the two institutions have many points in common.

    Information itself is going through a process of transformation, and it has become nearly impossible to define what belongs in a library and what is an archival document. I think that is what led the two heads to imagine that in order to serve Canadians better and provide them with integrated and complete information, a merger was the solution for the future.

    As for the equilibrium between the two, they are roughly the same size. They have been working together for many years. They have common internal services. You can certainly ask them this question. My role is to oversee the merger of the two institutions and my concern is to ensure that there is a good balance of employees and skills on both sides.

    I think that the critical mass of information specialists from both institutions will make it possible for the new institution to do much more significant things for Canadians in the future.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: I would like to ask one last question as follow-up to what Ms. Gagnon has said.

    As far as organization is concerned, there is the librarian and archivist and the permanent staff, and there is the advisory council. The Quebec National Archives has a board of directors. This is totally different. Here the legislation puts all the weight of administration on the librarian and archivist. The advisory council is merely consulted, as you have said, Mr. Guérette.

    You may not have thought of this, or perhaps it is not part of the tradition here, but might it not be appropriate to give thought to having a board? A board is active; it helps, controls, supervises. Its members act as watchdogs, with the authority required to fulfil that role. An advisory council is consulted when it suits us. It does not have the authority a board can have, often acting as a protection, an insurance policy.

À  (1015)  

    Mr. Jean Guérette: These questions have been looked at. In the case of concern to us here, as I have just said, we would continue to follow the principles that apply to a departmental agency, which the two institutions were in the past. The National Archives have the important function of maintaining the records of government.

    A board is created when a crown agency or body distinct from government is created. The question that arises here is whether it is preferable to assign the responsibility for maintaining the records of government to a departmental agency. Given the fact that we are dealing with a departmental agency, it is not appropriate to create a board for that type of institution.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Thank you. Now I understand the difference between what there is in Quebec and what there is here in Ottawa.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Strahl, do you have other questions?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have three things left on my plate here. I'd like to clarify the depository services program issue, just for my own benefit. I have some concerns about sections of the bill, about preserving, archiving, and access to government records, and finally on the copyright issue. So those are the three things left here.

    Just so it is clear to my local University College of the Fraser Valley, which is concerned about this depository services program, and clear to me, you're suggesting that because it's a program, the protection of that, or the management of those services, you feel, doesn't need to be in the legislation or shouldn't be in the legislation, but should instead just be a matter of negotiations between the Library and Archives and the depository services program itself, to see whether it should be under Communications Canada or whether it should come under the authority of the library system. Is that right?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Generally speaking, we do not put programs in legislation, because they can change. They can change title, and you don't want to amend legislation to do that. But there have been ongoing discussions with Communications Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I think they will lead to a good conclusion and a very effective program for both the libraries and the Canadian public.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Because they are part, as you know, of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, the Canadian Library Association, and l'Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de documentation, all feel — so my local librarian claims — that it should come under your mandate, the mandate of the Library and Archives of Canada. I encourage you to explore that option, as I know you are, and see if their concerns can be addressed.

    I am not sure if it is just because all librarians speak the same language as to why they want that, but I'll follow it up with her and get more details from her side. I am pleased to hear that you're in those negotiations.

    On the archiving, I mentioned in my speech, as you probably saw in the House, about the preservation and archiving of documents that the federal government produces. There are sections in this bill under clauses 8 and 12 that talk about how the National Archives should have access to the.... Paragraph 8(1)(g) says:

(g) advise government institutions concerning the management of information produced or used by them and provide services for that purpose

    Clause 12 describes that:

No government or ministerial record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, shall be disposed of, including by being destroyed, without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist

    These are strong powers given to the librarian and archivist to make sure that all records are preserved. Right now there seem to be some who feel that's not good enough.

    For example, Mr. Reid, appearing before the operations and estimates committee, proposed that we need the creation of an information management act to ensure increased record documentation, accountability for records within government departments, and security measures to prevent record destruction.

    He feels that whatever we have now, including, I assume, this protection under the Library and Archives Act, isn't adequate, that either they are not getting clear enough instruction, training, advice, or persecution, or what it's going to take...but he says it's just not happening.

    Are the powers in this section used...? It says here you can advise government institutions concerning the management of the information. Do you do that unsolicited, or do you wait for a minister or a department to come to you and say it needs some help on how to archive properly, or do you at times move in and say, “You have an abysmal record here in your department. I just can't get access. I'm going to give you some advice. You didn't ask for it, but I'm about to give it to you.” Do you do that?

À  (1020)  

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Those are the current provisions under the National Archives of Canada Act. Indeed, the Archives, especially the new institution, the Library and Archives, hopes again to have the critical mass to be a real player in the management of government information. I am sure Ian Wilson can speak at length on this.

    We want to be able to be in a position to facilitate the management of government information for its full life cycle. We want to be there to advise, support, give guidance, train, exhort, provide tools. I think all those things are needed.

    There's quite an ambitious plan for the new institution to really support good, proper management of government information. However, there will still be a role for the Information Commissioner.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. Well, the Information Commissioner obviously has a role. He suggests, though, that we need a whole special act of Parliament to make sure government departments are doing their job.

    I realize this is already the case right now. I have all the policy on the management of government information. It looks good to read through it, but Mr. Reid and others are saying — and I don't know if you were part of the development of that policy or not — maybe that's not enough. Maybe we need a specific act to make sure the government preserves records properly, in part so that the ATI requests get answered properly, but I assume as well so that it ends up in your hands so that it can be properly archived and it ends up on the right shelf somewhere.

    Do you see a need for a separate act? Would you think it would be useful or would it be a hindrance?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: That's probably a question for Mr. Reid, mostly. One thing is certain, the management of government information is a complex issue. It's big. Government deals in information all the time, and it certainly needs resources, tools, support, information, training.

    The new Library and Archives of Canada can play a really important role and should. Often it's more an issue of resources and people.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That was my next question. How many resources does that little clause in this act...? It's already in existence. But how much do you devote to that?

    To get back to the other question I had earlier, do you proactively go to departments and say, I have some concerns about the way you're handling things in this department, or do you wait for a newspaper article or Mr. Reid to blow the whistle on someone to say, we'd better get in there and do something to improve their record-keeping? Which happens?

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: Actually we were quite involved in the development of the policy so we want to influence all departments to do proper record-keeping.

    We are running pilots right now. We have developed some materials, some tools. We like to participate in training so we do a lot of proactive things. But we also found that there is no one-size-fits-all, and good information management is really tailored for the very department.

    We'd like to work more and more with departments in improving their records management. Yes, we do intervene with specific departments. We want to intervene with all of them. Again, I'm sure Ian Wilson can speak more eloquently than I do on this.

À  (1025)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Maybe I'll--

    Mr. Jean Guérette: If I may, Mr. Chair, on that point, I would like also to say this for the record. As I mentioned in my presentation, there's a new power given to the librarian and archivist in this legislation, and I refer to subclause 13(3):

If government records referred to in subsection (1) are, in the opinion of the Librarian and Archivist, at risk of serious damage or destruction, the Librarian and Archivist may require their transfer in the manner and at the time that the Librarian and Archivist specifies.

    I suspect that you were aware of that clause as well when....

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's a good section. The only problem is that you basically have to throw the fear of the Lord into them as well as have a section in the bill. You can command that. But if they say “You can command what you want, it doesn't exist any more”, or “I can't remember where I put it”, or “We don't bother keeping records any more”, then you have the power but you're asking them to transfer something that nobody has bothered to keep. The concern Mr. Reid has and the concern the people who use the ATIs have is that increasingly the government — and I realize you can't answer this--may not be keeping adequate records for the specific purpose of making sure it doesn't get in the archives. When that happens, of course, you can ask for it, but there are no sanctions. There's nothing in here that says failure to do so costs you your job. You can ask for it, but if it's not there to transfer....

    That's Mr. Reid's concern, and that's why he wants a separate act. I think there's going to be a move toward that separate act — and again, I'm not blaming you at all; I'm just suggesting that there will be continued pressure for a separate act with sanctions and with penalties, if government departments don't do what this bill actually calls for. Make it available, preserve it, transfer it when requested. Failure to do so will force another bill on Parliament, I think. I guess it's a word to the wise, not to you but to any departments that might be listening to this down the road. Failure to do this is going to mean a more heavy-handed legislative framework, and that's not going to make your life easier.

    My last point was on the copyright issue. I'm not exactly sure.... If you see these kinds of amendments, you try to figure out the genesis of it. Who exactly was in somebody's office pounding on a desk asking for this. That's what I try to ask myself. Is it the “Lucy Montgomery Copyright Amendment Act” we have here, or is it a bigger principle at stake? Why were the dates 1929 to 1949 chosen? Authors who died in that period of time? Why are those people immortalized in this legislation? Why the extra 50 years as opposed to 20 years or 5 years or anything else? Is this plucked out of imagination, or does it exactly have to be these dates?

    Mr. Bruce Stockfish (Director General, Copyright Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage): I'll answer that. As Mr. Guérette explained in his opening remarks, this was a provision that originated in Bill C-32, the 1997 amendments to the Copyright Act. Essentially it was a last-minute amendment to section 7. The fundamental change to section 7 was to make the term of protection for unpublished works the same as published works, unpublished works being private papers and short stories that simply hadn't found their way to a publisher.

    Because some of the owners of those works, the estates of deceased persons who were the authors of those works, would find their works immediately falling into the public domain, or very soon falling into the public domain, there was a concern that there should be transitional provisions. It is those transitional provisions that have caused problems.

    There were two periods of time related to deaths of the authors for which transitional periods were provided. Between 1949 and 1999 there was a period of 50 years or protection provided. By and large, that didn't cause the authors any grief.

    It was the period before 1949 that caused problems for authors. They felt that the five-year period that was granted, until the end of this year, pursuant to the amendments, was a little too hastily made and was unfair. They didn't feel they had an opportunity to publish their works. They felt this was simply too hastily done.

    So we indicated to them that we would certainly listen to their concerns but that they should attempt to resolve it. In fact, that's exactly what they did. A small group was put together of interested stakeholders, involving librarians, historians, archivists, along with the authors, the writers. They put together a proposal, a consensus proposal, that was submitted to the government. Effectively that proposal has found its way into this bill.

    We consulted broadly and received no objection, so it's for this reason that it's included in this bill. It relates broadly to the concerns of archivists and librarians. It's a part of the government's short-term copyright reform agenda because of its time sensitivity. And because it did receive consensus approval, it was included.

    The reason the new transition period was included was simply because that was the agreement the user and author communities came to. Essentially there are two new periods. There's a transition period for authors who died between 1929 and 1949. They have an additional 14 years, a total of 19 years now, instead of the original 5 years, and provision, as Mr. Guérette explained, for a further 20 years if they choose to publish. Authors who died before 1949 essentially are subject to the original transitional rule that was provided for in 1997, in other words, five years. Their protection will expire before the end of this year. They also will have a provision for an additional 20 years' protection, however, if they publish.

    There is no magic in the numbers, except that this was the agreement the authors and users came to, and the government agreed to consult on it and include it in its short-term package of reforms. This bill, referring to archive and library issues broadly, provided an opportunity to deal with a time-sensitive issue.

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: This group that was put together obviously came to a consensus, but was there any representation by any group or persons who said they felt this was out of line, who weren't part of the group, or who were excluded from the group? Was there any fuss on the other side, with people saying this should be publicly available and the time has run out; I'm offended, or hurt, or have lost an economic opportunity, or anything else? I'm worried, because it's easy to build consensus if you start with a group who all agree with one another. There's usually another side to it. I'd like to know if they were consulted.

    Mr. Bruce Stockfish: As I mentioned, the working group included the user community broadly. It included the archivist community, the historian community, the librarian community. That's not enough, of course. We want to consult broadly and we did that. We posted the results of their study, their report, on our website for broad consultation and we heard no objection.

    There is provision in this package as well for the archivist. It's a balanced package. There's a new provision that would allow for an archivist to avoid the requirement to seek authorization for unlocatable copyright owners. That was part of the quid pro quo. By and large, what we have heard is that the user community is content.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Then it just--

    The Chair: Excuse me.

    Mr. Richstone, you wanted to add something?

    Mr. Jeff Richstone (General Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Stockfish just made the point I was about to make, that it was a balanced package because of the amendment to the use of unpublished works in archives. As Mr. Stockfish pointed out, two requirements that were proving onerous were removed and now there's a single tier to allow people to do historical and genealogical research in archives under a single tier--to do research and private studying. So that was an important benefit.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: My last question, Mr. Chairman, is on the dates of those authors who died between 1929 and 1949. Was that a consensus number? Why is it 1929 to 1949? I know 1949 to 1999...there's that 50-year period there, but why is the 1929 number there? It's a little puzzling.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Bruce Stockfish: I understand the representatives of the working group may be appearing before you. You can certainly ask them. But clearly the concern of most authors, or authors' estates, to be more precise, was for authors who died between 1929 and 1949. You made reference to the estate of Lucy Maude Montgomery, and, yes, we have heard that was a concern of the estate of that particular author, but there are estates of other authors, the estate of Stephen Leacock and others, who, during that period of time, felt that their interests were prejudiced and that they needed a longer transition period.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'll ask that working group when they come. Thank you.

    That's all, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Do you have a question, Ms. Allard?

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Stockfish, am I right in believing that the amendments to the bill will make it easier for the public to obtain documents by unknown authors?

    Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes, in a way. As Mr. Stockfish and I have said, the amendments your bill makes to section 30.21 of the Copyright Act will make all archived documents subject to the same requirement. If the author or holder of the copyright does not forbid it, people will be able to carry out genealogical and historical research subject to one very clear condition: fair use of the research and private study as a fair dealing.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So the obligation to find the holder of a copyright and to obtain his or her consent is removed, under certain circumstances. Is that right?

    Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes, it is.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: The obligation to keep a record of all copies made, a rather heavy burden for archivists, is also removed.

    Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes, that is correct.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So we can assume that the Canadian public is going to have more ready access to archival documents as a result of these changes to the Copyright Act.

    Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes, but for research and private study purposes.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Fine, thank you.

    The Chair: I believe the committee members have no more questions.

[English]

    I would like to thank you very much.

[Translation]

    I would like to thank you very sincerely for taking part in this session. It has been very useful to us and has paved the way for the presentation by Messrs. Roch Carrier and Ian Wilson, who will provide a very important complement to your presentation.

[English]

    Thank you very much for appearing before us. We appreciate it.

    We will now sit in camera for a short business meeting. We have two motions to approve.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]