[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 10, 1996
.0910 
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to call the meeting to order. On our agenda is consideration of Bill C-32.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): Mr. Chairman, with the committee's consent, I would like us to sit in camera to consider the schedule of meetings set out in the motion. I would like to discuss with my colleagues and the government how we are going to proceed. If the committee agrees, I think we could proceed.
[English]
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): I'm sorry, but I would be interested in having a little more background on this.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Could you explain your request, Mr. Leroux?
Mr. Leroux: A motion respecting the schedule of meetings was tabled by the government and everyone received a copy of it. We agreed that in order to examine the bill, it was important to have in hand all of the parties' amendments. We have tabled all of ours, and I believe you have tabled yours as well. All that remains is for the government to present their amendments.
This issue has not quite been resolved. Before we continue our work, I would like us to discuss in camera how we are going to proceed so that everything runs smoothly and everyone has access to the amendments.
I would like us to discuss this in camera, Mr. Chairman, amongst ourselves, so that everything is very clear.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Okay. Would you permit me to consult with Mr. Hanrahan?
The Chairman: Yes.
Go ahead, Mr. Arseneault.
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): As you know, Mr. Chair, I gave notice of notion within the recommended time with regard to what we would do in the future and when we would sit. That was just so we could have members arrange their schedules.
Mr. Leroux approached me this morning and suggested we look at that schedule in a little more detail. It would be much easier, in an informal way, to build some type of rapport in a consensus as to where we would go with that schedule. Mr. Leroux has some concerns about sitting all this morning, with certain amendments that have been proposed by the government at this late date.
So we would like to discuss with our partners a proposed schedule and then sit down in camera. We will come back to the meeting and make the appropriate motions in public. The motions wouldn't be made in camera; they would be made in public.
If not, we'd be prepared to go with the schedule, and I'd be prepared to move the schedule now.
The Chairman: If I understand you well, Mr. Arseneault, assuming we get consent, there is an in camera meeting and we can discuss the schedule, then depending on what the conclusion of that meeting is, you'd propose an amendment to this, if necessary.
Mr. Arseneault: If necessary. But I am ready, Mr. Chair, to move this motion. I gave proper notice. We're ready to move this morning and go ahead from clause 3 right to the end of the bill, if necessary.
The Chairman: But your first choice is for us to do this now.
Mr. Arseneault: Yes. We can do that now. But Mr. Leroux has asked that we discuss it amongst ourselves before we move in that direction.
The Chairman: If I understand you rightly, then, you agree with the other side -
Mr. Arseneault: We could go in camera to discuss it, yes, and then the opposition would get a better idea of what the government's intentions are, we would get a better idea what their intentions are and then we can go from there. I think we've been very open with other members all along. I want to continue with that process.
The Chairman: We'll give time to Mr. Abbott to discuss this with his colleague.
.0915
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, we have objected to any of this process going in camera, because we think it is a public bill. It is something that is going to affect all members of the Canadian community. However, with great reluctance we will agree to this process.
I want to go on record as saying that I think where we have had difficulties in the process right at the very start, where we had some unfortunate difficulties - and there's a potential for some difficulties here - it seems to me they reflected around the fact that we have done some of this process in camera, and I don't agree with it.
As a matter of goodwill, however, and getting on with the job, we'll begrudgingly go along with it.
The Chairman: I'll now take a vote on Mr. Leroux's motion that we sit in camera
[Translation]
to discuss the schedule of meetings.
Motion agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: The meeting will continue in camera until further notice.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
.1112
[Public proceedings resume]
The Chairman: We now resume public examination of Bill C-32.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, it is with extreme regret that the Reform Party, Mr. Hanrahan and I, have decided to withdraw from the clause-by-clause process. It is with extreme regret because we have had a tremendous amount of cooperation and goodwill on the committee. I think the committee has worked well on this bill. I particularly want to commend your chairmanship in allowing this to happen.
I also want to acknowledge that because the committee has worked well in a non-partisan way, this has put an extra strain on the bureaucrats, on the departments. I wish to acknowledge that they too have responded to that and have worked very hard to keep up with the suggestions that have been coming from the committee.
We are withdrawing at this particular point because of the decision by the Liberal government to see this bill completed in terms of clause-by-clause under the next thing to a time allocation. We disagree that the government should be forcing the members of this committee, who have worked so diligently and so hard to make this a better bill, at the last minute to push it through to meet their own agenda.
We're fully aware of the fact that December 13 was the day scheduled for the House to rise. It therefore didn't come as any surprise to the government. By putting the time constraint, effectively the time allocation, on this committee to bring this forward, it's our opinion that the bill will be the poorer for it.
We note that at this time there still are amendments the government is going to bring forward to this legislation that have not been made available to the opposition members. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, they have not been made available to the government members. We think that is an indication of what is going on here. We are being forced by the agenda of the Liberal government, which, again, created the time allocation vote in the House we've just came back from, and just plain mismanagement on the part of the government.
.1115
We believe there are contributions the Reform Party will have made, as there have been contributions made by the Bloc Québécois and by the government members, that are being responded to by the minister and by her department, but we think it is unconscionable, with the amount of goodwill and hard work and diligence and sincerity to which members of this committee have responded to the challenge of this legislation, that the government would be forcing this time allocation.
As a consequence, it is with extreme regret that we will be withdrawing. We will be engaging ourselves with the bill as it comes back to the House in the new year and will be responding to whatever has happened within committee.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there any comments?
Well, Mr. Abbott, I will respect your decision. Your decision is yours. I only want to say that I have sat on a great number of committee hearings, federal and provincial, on many pieces of legislation. I find nothing here that is outside common parliamentary practice.
There is no such thing as time allocation on committee work. A timetable was discussed among all members of the committee. We adjourned to discuss it. There were suggestions from all sides. In fact, the suggestions for time allocation, if you will recall, came from the Bloc Québécois.
So I don't see anything in our practices that have been irregular or abnormal or that have reflected poorly on the possible work of the opposition. We agreed on time delays to permit the added amendments to be studied by all parties, all members, according to suggestions made by the Bloc Québécois. So I don't see any validity in saying that this is being pushed through at an abnormal speed.
The fact is, we sat many hours to arrive at just a few clauses the other day, with a view toward giving all the latitude possible to the members to discuss it.
I also made the point that as with all bills, especially bills of this nature, which are so complicated, if you leave a lapse of time of a week, two weeks, three weeks or four, and then ask members to come back in February to study it, it means going over all the stuff again, refreshing your mind, getting the whole momentum of it, putting in place again the whole infrastructure. I think this was a valid reason for our wanting to complete the work.
At the same time, I agree; this is the way democracy works. Every one of us makes his or her decisions. I respect yours, and I appreciate what you had to say. So I thank you very much, and I regret the decision you've taken.
Mr. Abbott: Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We will now proceed with the work. First of all,
[Translation]
we had decided to begin with amendment BQ-1, but from what I understand, Mr. Leroux, you would prefer that we set this aside until consideration of clause 18. Is that correct?
Mr. Leroux: Further to our discussions and further to our agreement, we would like to take up this amendment tomorrow, during consideration of clause 18, because by then, we will have received the government's amendments to clause 18. We will therefore have 24 hours to examine them.
Therefore, we will be concentrating today on clauses 3 to 17.
.1120
The Chairman: Agreed.
On clause 3
The Chairman: Ms Phinney, the next item of business is amendment G-12.
[English]
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I move to amend clause 3 of Bill C-32 by replacing lines 2 to 5 on page 10 with the following:
- musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematographic film or other contrivance by
means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,
The Chairman: Any discussion?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Further amendments.
Ms Phinney: I move to amend clause 3 of Bill C-32 by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 10 with the following:
- and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work,
- Again, this is an amendment to modernize the archaic language that was put in the bill in 1924.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you have an amendment, Mr. Leroux?
Mr. Leroux: I move that clause 3 on page 10 be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18 with the following:
i) to rent out the work.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to clause 3 would place neighbouring rights and copyright rights on an equal footing. In my view, it was important for these rights to be balanced in the bill because copyright had been recognized in the case of musical works, performers, producers and computers. Therefore, this amendment seeks to balance the rights of the various parties.
The Chairman: Any comments?
Mr. Leroux: I request a recorded division, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 1
Clause 3 as amended agreed to
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to
On clause 6
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I move that clause 6 be amended by:
a) replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 12 with the following:
- ``tion (1) occurred during the period of 50 years immediately before the com...''
- (b) replacing line 39 on page 12 with the following:
- ``tion (2) occurred more than 50''
This amendment would reduce from 100 to 50 years the transition period during which unpublished works are accessible.
This amendment addresses a number of concerns expressed by archivists and historians during our hearings. If the Reform had not withdrawn, I think they would agree somewhat with this amendment because it provides greater access to information. I doubt that it pleases my colleague opposite, but this amendment is being moved at the request of a number of witnesses. Enough questions were raised to make us reconsider this provision.
Mr. Leroux: My colleague is making an assumption.
Mr. Bélanger: I suppose so.
Amendment agreed to
[English]
Clause 6 as amended agreed to
On clause 7
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I move amendment G-15. This is a proposed clause. It is essentially to put in line the protection for photographers, to make it equal to that of other authors' copyright.
In other words, it is currently 50 years. This amendment would effect two things. First, it would make it life plus 50 years, which is something the photographers were keen on when they presented here. It also effects another change, which I think might be of importance. This had not been thoroughly discussed, but it has been since with officials. It would add a clause that where a corporation is the owner of the photo being copyrighted, in situations where a physical person - a real person, not a moral person - has the majority of shares, it would allow for the same kind of copyright protection.
So G-15 would amend clause 7 by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 13 with what you have before you. If you wish, I can read it, but....
[Translation]
The Chairman: No, that's fine, Mr. Bélanger, unless members insist. Are you up to speed on amendment G-15?
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 7 as amended agreed to
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to
On clause 10
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. With respect to photographers, I believe it is important for us to recognize a long-standing demand, namely that they be recognized as authors. I got the feeling from our discussions that everyone seated around this table feels that this situation has evolved and that this fact must explicitly be recognized. My amendment would clearly confirm that photographers are entitled to copyright in their work.
.1130
Therefore, I move that Bill C-32 in clause 10 be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 13 with the following:
10.(1) Subsection 13(2) of the act is repealed.
(2) Subsection 13(4) of the act is replaced by the following:
This would recognize that photographers have copyright in their work.
Everyone seated around this table seemed to be in agreement on this point when we discussed it, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Ms Susan Katz (Director General, Cultural Industries, Department of Canadian Heritage): I would make a comment on the proposed amendment with regard to ownership of photographic works. In considering the briefs presented by the witnesses, we felt that at this time we would not be able to proceed with more than a term of protection. The question with regard to ownership would have required a fair degree of consultation with a number of other parties, and it was not possible to undertake that consultation. So for the moment, we felt the only amendment we could proceed with would be with regard to term of protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Arseneault: Furthermore, we have not sufficiently discussed the impact of a provision such as this. We have not really heard from witnesses on the subject. We have only heard from people representing one side of the issue.
Mr. Leroux: I understand. However, I have some trouble with what Ms Katz just said. I don't know if the Department of Industry only realized it yesterday, but this is a long-standing demand. These people have been fighting for this for many years now. Here in committee, we unanimously agreed that the situation had evolved. There's a museum of photography in Ottawa. It's not complicated. Photographers are authors and creators and everyone recognized this.
All of a sudden, the Department of Industry is waking up and claiming that it didn't have time to consult people. I'm literally astounded by this. I have to wonder if the Department of Industry is alone in handling things. I'm really annoyed because I thought that everyone agreed on this. Departmental officials were there and they agreed that the situation had indeed evolved, but now, all of a sudden, they claim that they didn't have time to do any consultation. From 1925 to 1988, there was a lot of time to review the legislation. We had phase 1, and then phase 2 and photographers were still not recognized as authors. This is very hard to swallow.
Mr. Arseneault: I understand, but the committee hasn't had time either to assess the impact of such a provision on the other parties, on newspapers, magazines and so forth. We have not heard from enough witnesses on the subject.
Mr. Leroux: The witnesses representing the photographers outlined the situation very clearly to us. Everyone knows that they have been demanding this status for years. I'm surprised to hear the departmental official say this morning that there hasn't been time for consultations.
What's going on? Have we entrusted the task of drafting the legislation to the wrong people? I have to wonder. It appears to me that the people responsible for drafting this legislation were completely disconnected from certain realities and too focussed on imperatives which have no relation to copyright. I sometimes get this impression.
Mr. Patrice Lemyre (Acting Senior Project Leader, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Industry Canada): On a point of information, Ms Katz is from the Department of Canadian Heritage, while I am work for Industry Canada. I would simply like to agree with what Ms Katz said.
Mr. Leroux: So, we're no further ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this point. It seems that the drafters of the bill were completely disconnected from reality. I won't say anything more. Witnesses representing photographers testified before our committee and representations were made to us. My colleagues listened carefully to them and appreciated what they had to say, but I feel that we are being held up by people who are not up to speed on this issue.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
Mr. Leroux: I would like my colleagues opposite to support me for once, so that we can state clearly to photographers that we recognize them as authors. At the very least, I would like us to support this amendment.
.1135
The Chairman: Shall I call the question?
Mr. Leroux: I request a recorded division, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment negatived: Nays 5; Yeas 1
[English]
Clause 10 agreed to
Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to
On clause 14
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, if there are no objections, we could examine clause 14 in its entirety.
The Chairman: There are six proposed amendments.
Mr. Leroux: Unless the government has some objections...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that Bill C-32 in clause 14 be -
The Chairman: Are you moving all of the amendments, Mr. Peric?
Mr. Peric: Yes.
The Chairman: So that we don't have any misunderstanding, you are moving G-16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 to clause 14, right?
Amendments G-16 to G-21 have been moved as a block.
Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Clause 14 as amended agreed to
On clause 15 - Copyright in relation to performance
The Chairman: We have two amendments from the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-32 in clause 15 be amended by replacing lines 2 to 5 on page 27 with the following:
- person to make or possess a ``plate'' or material form that has been used or is intended to be used
to make infringing copies of a work or other subject matter.
- The aim is to provide remedies in the case of modern technologies. There is no provision for this
in the bill. That is the reason behind this amendment.
[English]
Do you want a comment from the officials, Mr. Arseneault?
Mr. Arseneault: Yes, please.
[Translation]
Mr. René Bouchard (Director, Copyright Policy and Economic Planning, Department of Canadian Heritage): Could Mr. Leroux repeat the wording of the amendment.
The Chairman: Would you like a copy of the amendment so that you could read it? It would be simpler that way.
.1140
Mr. Leroux: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that in addition to plates, there are other modern means of infringing copies.
Mr. Arseneault: Could you give us an example?
Mr. Bouchard: Are the words you have in mind not included in the word ``plate''? This expression applies to a number of material forms.
Mr. Leroux: Do you feel that ``plate'' has a much broader meaning than ``material form''?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes. It's one possible interpretation...
Mr. Leroux: You mean it's your interpretation.
Mr. Bouchard: Yes.
Mr. Leroux: The words ``material form'' are used throughout the bill in a general way and the meaning of the words is, to my mind, much broader that the meaning of the word "plate" .
Mr. Bouchard: It's simply a question of how we interpret the word in a much broader sense. We could put this question to someone with more experience in drafting legislation.
Mr. Leroux: The words ``material form'' appear in several places in the bill. A material form could be a tape, for example. It refers to the form in which the work presents itself. It seems to me that ``plate'' has a narrower meaning.
Mr. Bouchard: I don't know if anyone involved with the drafting process can comment on this. Mr. Chairman, perhaps someone who specializes in legal drafting could...
Mr. Jeff Richstone (Lawyer, Department of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Leroux, you are proposing two amendments to the bill. You're proposing that we add the word ``support'' or ``material form'', which is not an accurate translation. In my humble opinion, this is not the correct word.
Mr. Leroux: You mean in English?
Mr. Richstone: Normally, we use the word ``medium'', not ``material form''.
Mr. Leroux: Now I am confused.
Mr. Richstone: Mr. Bouchard has asked me to make some technical comments and I am doing so, for what it's worth. You are proposing two changes here: first, you propose to add a word which is not defined in clause 2, which causes something of a problem; second, you propose to change the wording of the clause. The terminology is specifically adapted to this situation and if you leave these words out of the text, then you have a problem. Take the word plate or ``planche'' as defined in the bill. Any photocopying machine used by someone other than the owner... If an institution owns a photocopying machine and that machine is used by someone to infringe copyright without the institution's knowledge, the machine shall be seized, even though the owner had no direct knowledge of the act being committed. Therefore, this does cause a number of problems.
I can give you another example that is mentioned in case law, namely printing presses which cost several million dollars. They can be used at night to infringe copyright. The definition of ``plate'' is broad enough to include printing presses like these which can be seized, even though they were used without the owner's knowledge. That's why these words were added to the bill.
Mr. Leroux: My interpretation is somewhat different. The CRIA, the English counterpart to ADISQ, is of the opinion that ``material form'' is much broader than ``plate''. They are very close to this issue. Now then, you're telling me that the word ``plate'' covers the same things. They argued in their submission and their representations that the meaning of the word ``plate'' was more limited.
Mr. Richstone: I would point out that jurisprudence has moved in the opposite direction. The word ``plate'' has been given a very broad, modern interpretation by the courts.
Mr. Leroux: A modern interpretation of the notion of a ``plate''.
Mr. Richstone: Even if the word harkens back to the XIX Century...
.1145
Mr. Leroux: That's true.
Mr. Richstone: Quite.
Mr. Leroux: However, since the objective is to modernize the legislation and since the word ``material form'' is used throughout the bill to designate all fixations that can be used, isn't this appropriate?
Mr. Richstone: Yes, but the bill uses the words ``material form'' in reference to a certain type of technology or a way of using this technology. The word ``plate'' applies to all types of contrivances. A material form is used to do certain things, but a ``plate'' can apply to generations of...
Mr. Bouchard: It can refer not only to the fixation used to make the copy, but also to the material form itself. In this respect, it has a much broader meaning.
Mr. Richstone: One is passive, whereas the other is active.
Mr. Leroux: Therefore, this expression is more inclusive.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: If the amendment proposed to add only ``it is an infringement of copyright for any person to make or possess a plate or material form that has been specifically designed or adapted for the purposes of'', would this be an improvement? I'm recommending that we add the words "or a material form".
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to my colleague's proposal.
The Chairman: Ms Noël had something to add to that.
Mr. Bélanger: By all means.
[English]
Ms Wanda Noël (Committee Researcher): Mr. Richstone, I wonder if it perhaps would be useful to the members to explain some of the consequences to the remedies if there is a broader definition of ``plate,'' because this is one of those issues where, if the definition is changed, there can be some broader availability of remedies under the remedies section.
I think perhaps Mr. Richstone should explain that in terms of providing what the consequences of the change will be in the actual real world where this is going to operate.
Mr. Richstone: Thank you very much.
Fair enough. To make a change here in this section, in the remedies section there are specific clauses dealing with seizure of plates. That's proposed section 38. There the copyright owner can seize any plate and order it to be delivered up or destroyed. There has been a great deal of jurisprudence on that provision. It's called ``conversion damage'' - usurpation, en français - where there have been many abuses, because the plate can be worth several hundreds of millions of dollars and the actual infringement a whole lot less, in certain cases. If you add a word here in this section, ``immediately'', in order to have any kind of real-life consequences, as Madame Noël said, it would have to be reflected in the remedies section.
There is also another remedies section, criminal remedies, dealing with making or possessing plates. Again, if there was an amendment made here, it would have to be reflected there.
Again, right away the question is what are we talking about? When we're talking about planche, we have a definition in the act and we know what we're talking about; we're talking about certain kinds of appareils, certain kinds of contrivances that are used to make copies. When we're using the word support, or whatever the English would be, the ``medium'' or whatever, we're not sure if we're talking about the same category of device.
If we're putting that there, there are immediate consequences in the civil and criminal realm that are difficult to evaluate, because at that point you may be opening up criminal remedies or civil remedies to a lot of objects that are in and of themselves innocuous.
A support,
[Translation]
for whatever it's worth. It's fine as long as the medium is not used to make infringing copies of a work,
[English]
and the same thing with.... A ``plate'' is something different.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger: Ms Noël is right to raise this question. We need a remedy adapted to modern technology. The discussion over the words ``plate'' and ``material form'' is enlightening, but it needs to be adapted to modern technology. You say that the word ``material form'' has a lesser impact. I would like to know what Ms Noël thinks about this.
.1150
[English]
Ms Noël: I would be very reluctant to give an opinion on that without having some time to assess really what the impact would be in terms of the availability of remedies under the remedies section of the bill.
My fear would be that by broadening the definition you may provide in the hands of copyright owners the ability to seize and have access to remedies that perhaps are not appropriate or are too strong in the circumstances. There has been considerable debate over the years in revision of the definition of the word ``plate'' in the bill for that very reason, and some of the amendments that were put forward here.
If you would give an ability, for example, to seize a million-dollar printing press, asMr. Richstone pointed out, because it might be used or could be used for infringing purposes but at the same time is also usable for non-infringing purposes, that perhaps is far too wide a remedy.
So my answer is, I would want to consider it and very carefully assess the ramifications of that amendment through both the criminal and the civil remedies in the bill before I would support it.
Mr. Arseneault: Ms Noël, in your opinion, does this amendment broaden or narrow?
Ms Noël: I would say it would broaden.
Mr. Arseneault: It would broaden.
Ms Noël: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting you, but I felt it was important to make some clarifications.
Mr. Bélanger: That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman. After the first answer, I thought that we could perhaps restrict Mr. Leroux' amendment by limiting it to ``or a medium''.
I have just reread the definition of ``plate''. I think that this would be worthwhile. The definition is broad enough to cover just about any kind of medium. If my colleague concurs, I think that we could...
Mr. Leroux: This is what I wanted to clarify. The word ``material form'' is widely used in the legislation, whereas ``plate'' appears to have a much narrower meaning. Now you're telling me that the situation has evolved and that the courts have, on the contrary, given the word ``plate'' a much broader meaning. That's what you're telling me.
Mr. Bélanger: That's right. I'm now ready for the question. Thank you.
The Chairman: You have heard all of the arguments and I think that we are now ready for the question on the amendment.
Mr. Leroux: I'm not prepared to withdraw it because some adjustments could have been made.
The Chairman: Do you wish to have a recorded division, Mr. Leroux?
Mr. Leroux: Yes.
Amendment negatived: Nays 5; Yeas 1.
Mr. Leroux: I have another amendment to propose to clause 15.
I move that clause 15 be amended by replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 27 with the following:
- infringement of copyright in a book, cinematographic work or sound recording for any person
to import the book, cinematographic work or sound recording as the case may be, where...
- The objective of this amendment is to extend the provision respecting parallel importation to
cinematographic works and sound recordings. It is a very specific objective.
.1155
We do not anticipate any problems for the other industries. The objective was to provide some sort of remedy. I don't think we should try to intervene in a sector which doesn't really have any problems at this time.
Mr. Leroux: If that's the case, including this amendment does not pose a problem. It could be deemed preventive action.
Mr. Arseneault: It could cause some problems. We just don't know.
Mr. Leroux: I don't follow you. Kindly explain it to me?
Mr. Bouchard: This provision was included to respond to needs expressed by the publishing industry. There were some problems in this sector.
There is no such problem with respect to sound recordings. There is far less evidence to suggest that sound recordings and cinematographic works would come up against the same problems as the publishing industry.
You wondered whether we should not include this as a preventive measure. I think that a number of provisions could be included in the legislation as a preventive measure, but this would make the bill rather more complex than it currently is.
Our approach has always been to see if there is a problem first and then attempt to resolve it subsequently. With respect to the publishing industry, the evidence was clear that there was a problem concerning the parallel importation of books.
Mr. Leroux: I understand, but this doesn't mean that this provision cannot be extended to other industries. Parallel importation is possible in the fields of cinematography, music and so forth. This amendment takes nothing away. On the contrary, it could provide some added protection.
You're talking about what impact this would have. I fail to see what the ramifications would be if we were to include cinematographic works and sound recordings in the provision respecting the parallel importation of books.
Mr. Arseneault: What would be the consequences of adopting this amendment? Would there be serious ramifications?
Mr. Leroux: Do you see any problem, Ms Noël?
The Chairman: I'm sure Mr. Leroux would like to hear what Ms Noël has to say, but go ahead.
Mr. Bouchard: Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the three industries are structured differently. It's not because one provision is well- suited to a particular cultural industry that it should be imported to the other two cultural industries and have the same effect.
If you're asking me here and now what kind of impact a parallel importation regime would have on the cinematographic industry, I would tell you that the market is totally different. This industry is structured very differently and the concentration of foreign firms is also quite different. The same is true of the music industry. While these may be three cultural industries, they have different structures and face different problems.
Perhaps this could be brought in as a preventive step, but I am not convinced it would be a good one because the problem doesn't appear to exist or, at the very least, a strong case has not be made that a problem exists.
Mr. Leroux: However, you can't say that it would be a bad measure.
The Chairman: Have you any further comments, Mr. Bouchard?
Mr. Bouchard: No, I do not.
[English]
Ms Noël: The one point I would make, Mr. Leroux, is that provisions are introduced into the copyright law to cure identifiable and usually documented problems or trouble spots. It's quite correct that the sound recording industry...several of them, in the briefs that were submitted to the committee, did make the request that the parallel importation protection be extended to the sound recording industry on the same basis as it had been done for the book industry.
In all the many years I've been involved in copyright revision and in developing policy and arguing on behalf of clients the problems and the amendments that have been solved by amendments to the law have been to deal with a particularly documented and identified problem. The submissions that were made in the briefs I don't think developed the scope of the problem or defined it to the extent that was done in the book industry. It has been a recurring problem in that industry and a lot of work and research has been done to identify and define a solution to the problem which was particularly tailored to the problem.
Again, I'm not saying the amendment is a bad one or a good one, but I don't think sufficient work has been done to be able to develop a precise solution to a precise problem, because we haven't defined the problem totally. So as the revision progresses and this particular parallel importation protection that's been provided in this bill is tested, as it goes on, if the same problem is identified, documented and supported in the sound recording industry...that a particular solution couldn't be devised for that particular industry. But I don't think that's been done at this time.
.1200
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I understand, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Any further comments?
Mr. Leroux: I request a recorded division.
Amendment negatived: Nays 5; Yeas 1.
The Chairman: The next amendment is G-21.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there an amendment on the part of the government?
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Mr. Chairman, I would move that clause 15 be amended - we're at G-21a - as written here:
- the infringement occurred, notice has been given within the prescribed time and in the
prescribed manner to the person referred to in
- That amends lines 18 and 19 on page 28.
- Regulations
[Translation]
The Chairman: Does everyone understand the amendment? Are there any questions?
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 15 as amended agreed to
[Translation]
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, maybe you should clarify when we're sitting so everyone is sure we're on the same timetable.
The Chairman: There's an agreement among the members that tomorrow
[Translation]
Wednesday, December 11, we will sit from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
[English]
from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Thursday, December 12, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
[Translation]
from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.; and on Friday, December 13, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
[English]
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Is that clear to all members?
[Translation]
Are there any questions?
Mr. Arseneault: Are you committed to wrapping up this clause- by-clause study this week, Mr. Leroux?
Mr. Leroux: That's our objective. We are prepared to work on the amendments that have been tabled. Some amendments are still being drafted. We have given ourselves 24 hours. I expect to receive these amendments or, if they are not yet ready, to have officials at least explain to us the gist of them so that we have a general idea of where things stand. We agreed on this.
.1205
I don't care about the exact wording, but rather about the general meaning of the amendment. I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to work with the officials as early as this afternoon.
The Chairman: I think it's quite clear. If the drafting of the amendments is not completed by then, each one of you will be available to Mr. Leroux to explain the gist of the amendments.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that we have extended the same offer to the Reform Party,
[English]
that officials would be available to help them out if they couldn't understand any amendments.
The Chairman: I should stress that during our three-party meeting the same offer was made to the Reform Party. The timetable was discussed. They had no objection to the timetable itself. They decided for their own reasons to withdraw.
Ms Phinney: Could you clarify, Mr. Chairman, whether Reform has removed all of their amendments.
The Chairman: They've never been moved. It's up to them to move them if they want to.
Mr. Arseneault: Maybe someone else will move them.
An hon. member: By telepathy.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.