GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADA LABOUR CODE

BILL C-66. TIME ALLOCATION MOTION

That in relation to Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It has already been decided that any recorded division requested with regard to business pursuant to Standing Order 78 on March 13, 1997 be deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders on March 17, 1997.

COPYRIGHT ACT

(1025 )

Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, just as a point of information, the hon. minister moved the motion on a point of order. I wonder if that is the proper place for this motion to be moved or whether it should be under government motions. Could you clarify that for me?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The minister moved it at the appropriate time as per Standing Order 78(2)(b) which is during orders of the day.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 8, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 50, 51 and 52

Group No. 3: Motion No. 4

[Translation]

Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 6, 44 and 60.

[English]

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57

[Translation]

Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 12 to 15.

[English]

Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 16, 38, 58 and 59

Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 40 and 41

Group No. 9: Motion No. 45

[Translation]

Group No. 10: Motions Nos. 47, 53, 55 and 56.

[English]

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49 to the House.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to withdraw a number of amendments that I have proposed. The government tabled its amendments this morning and they cover several areas in which I had made requests. Unfortunately, I could not do this until today when the government tabled its amendments.

I would like to withdraw Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18.

(1030 )

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon. member has withdrawn all her motions.

(Motions Nos. 16, 21, 22, 23 and 18 withdrawn)

MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 23 to 25 on page 2 with the following:

``wise include a copy made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where the copy was made;''

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 30 with the following:

``with motive of gain.''

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 25 and 26 on page 33 with the following:

``shall, in addition, mark the copy in the manner prescribed by''

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 35 with the following:

``if the newspaper or periodical was published more than one year before the copy is made.''

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 10 and 11 on page 36 with the following:

``who is one of its patrons, but the copy given to the patron must not be in digital form.''

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-32, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 18 to 21 on page 42 with the following:

``droit d'auteur le fait pour une personne agissant à la demande d'une personne ayant une déficience perceptuelle, ou pour un organisme sans but lucratif agissant dans l'intérêt de cette dernière, de se livrer à l'une des activités suivantes:''

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 53 with the following:

``ferred to in section 67 may only make''

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-32, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing, in the English version,

(a) lines 28 and 29 on page 54 with the following:

``has reproduced the work, a maximum''

(b) line 34 on page 54 with the following:

``(a) under any agreement entered into with''

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 69 with the following:

``in section 67 shall, on or before the''

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): They are just motions and they are the possession of the hon. member until they are moved. Therefore she can withdraw them.

We also have Motion No. 48 in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona who is not here.

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, we have an unfortunate situation with a very ill member who has not able to attend the House today for the debate.

I wonder if there would be unanimous consent of the House for the motions presented in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona to be moved by the member for Kootenay East, our critic in the area who is leading the debate for our party. Would there be unanimous consent for those motions to have been deemed moved and seconded?

(1035 )

Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, before giving consent, I understand the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is ill. We accept that point. I hope the same spirit of co-operation the government is showing will prevail. We would not be in favour of many of those amendments and by not agreeing to the consent it would be a very easy way of disposing of them.

For the sake of debate and under the circumstances we would agree. We hope the same consideration and co-operation will be shown during the debate and that there will not be any attempt to delay the bill unduly today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 43 on page 71, and lines 1 to 37 on page 72.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 6 on page 72 with the following:

``royalties, in respect of each of the first three''

I have a few remarks to make about the bill in general. Bill C-32 has gathered some publicity in the hearings and in public. The government the bill is balanced. It takes into consideration the creators and the users. It went before committee where there were many witnesses. We received almost 200 briefs. I am sure members of the committee received an equal number of letters touching on the bill.

I take this opportunity to single out the role of the committee in this regard. Considering the way the bill was handled members of all parties exhibited consistency in the committee hearings. The members showed up consistently, asked quality questions, listened to the witnesses and dealt with some issues. There was a lot of movement from the beginning of the hearings to the end. I congratulate members from all parties.

All the amendments in Group No. 1 are technical amendments. Some are consequential and result from changes made by the standing committee. We made many amendments and might have missed a little word here or there along the way. Other amendments are required to maintain consistency between the English and the French texts.

[Translation]

I will not discuss these amendments in detail. These amendments concern technicalities. I can assure you that the government support these amendments, and I believe that, if opposition members take a close look at them, they will see that these are only technical amendments.

Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I rise to speak today as official opposition critic for heritage and culture. I am proud because this is a bill which sets politics aside and addresses copyright. It addresses the moral and economic rights of creators over their works.

(1040)

I would remind members that Bill C-32 is the second stage in an effort to update a law drafted in 1924, which was amended for the first time in 1988. This bill affects creators and authors who have waited years to see their rights finally modernized and brought into

line with the economic and cultural activities of modern society, including the use of new technologies.

In 1988, phase I of the bill, the review phase, extended copyright protection to computer programs. It also gave creators additional moral rights over their works. In addition, it modernized the Copyright Appeal Board, now known as the Copyright Board.

Finally, in 1988, an extremely pivotal development took place: collective societies were recognized. There was recognition of the right of authors and creators to be represented by an organization that, through its efforts, would oversee the use of authors' and creators' works, collect royalties and levies and distribute them to artists. This recognition of collective societies is becoming important. We will see in the latest phase, Bill C-32, how this collective society was an issue when the bill was being studied.

Between 1988 and 1994, there were several amendments to the Copyright Act so that the government could meet its obligations under the free trade agreements, NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

Finally, last April, the government, in response to pressure from the official opposition, tabled Bill C-32 in phase II of the review process and, in so doing, introduced some new and very important rights called neighbouring rights, which are granted to performers and producers. Performers' rights had not yet been recognized, although they are recognized in 50 countries which signed what is known as the Rome Convention. Canada dragged its feet but finally decided in the course of this session to table this bill and introduce neighbouring rights.

It also set up what is referred to as a private copying compensation system. When the committee held its hearings, many groups came to submit their briefs and talk to committee members. As we all know, tape-recording for personal use is common practice. Even the Consumers' Association of Canada agreed. Everyone copies music and songs on tapes. Everyone records tapes, people pass them along, and so forth. Everyone agreed this was common practice.

In its bill, the government introduced a compensation system for private copying, which finally recognizes the rights of creators and authors by collecting a levy directly from the manufacturer. This levy will be redistributed as a kind of basic salary among all creators and authors, which we think is only fair. Later on I will tell you how many millions of dollars performers lose as a result of pirating alone.

(1045)

The bill also establishes book distribution rights for Canada, thereby strengthening the position of our book distributors, which is most welcome as a way to protect our culture. Finally, it improves procedures with respect to the avenues of legal recourse available to performers and to the applicable sanctions in case of fraud or if users refuse to comply with the law and pay royalties to the authors and creators who need this income to survive.

The average performer's salary is between $7,000 and $14,000, depending on whether the performer is a performing artist, a singer, a composer, an author or something else.

So this was a much needed improvement. However, there was a big black cloud hovering over this bill: the exceptions.

When copyright legislation is drafted so that authors and creators can make a living wage by collecting royalties, that is fine. But when the bill goes on to explain for pages and pages that authors and creators are not entitled to royalties in the case of cegeps, colleges, educational institutions, libraries, and many other sectors that are exempted from paying copyright, I think this is a very black cloud indeed. I will get back to this later on when we consider the amendments.

Bill C-32, phase II, is most welcome. It is welcomed by the entire artistic community, particularly in the case of neighbouring rights, by performers, including Quebec performers, whose work is played in francophone countries and who receive no royalties because Canada is not one of the 50 signatories of the Rome Convention.

With respect to neighbouring rights, let us recall that the Bloc Quebecois had called upon the government to table this bill and made a commitment to support it, provided it made specific reference to neighbouring rights.

We have respected that commitment and will continue today to support the government's bill, with its extremely important dimension for all artists: neighbouring rights.

As for private copying, and all this piracy using blank tapes, let us recall that what the government is introducing in the bill is a royalty charged directly to the manufacturer, which eventually becomes a salary for the artists.

This measure will enable artists, who are literally being robbed by illegal copying, to receive what is termed a fair share of what is owed to them.

I would like to remind you that, throughout the committee stage, the Bloc Quebecois brought in a series of amendments. I wish to congratulate my committee colleagues, for we accomplished a huge task. First of all, we received, heard and exchanged views with over 65 groups, who came to testify before the committee. I must say that all of my colleagues on the committee listened to the evidence and asked questions with a very open mind, particularly in the search to enhance the objectives of the bill. I wish to again congratulate them on their work in committee.

I would, however, like to draw the government's attention to the amendments presented by the Bloc, and to point out that it would be important to support the amendments we are presenting at the report stage, simply because they concern the interests of authors and creators, not the political interests of one party, but the interests of authors and creators.

I invite the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the Reform Party fully acknowledges the necessity of the revisions for the Copyright Act. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party would be very supportive of a well thought out process which would achieve that objective. Unfortunately this bill does not represent that well thought out approach.

(1050)

The bill was initially tabled on April 23, 1996. It had second reading on June 4, 1996 and there was a briefing meeting with officials from industry and heritage on June 18, 1996. It was at that meeting that we had our first indication that the bill, indeed this entire effort on the part of the heritage minister, was in great trouble.

There were a number of questions that I had posed at that briefing meeting that it seemed to me the officials, with all due respect, were completely unprepared for. Many parts of the bill, unfortunately, had not been thought through at all.

When the minister made her presentation to the committee, which I believe was in September 1996, she was basically working from briefing notes and had not grasped the implications or the problems which the bill she was proposing would create both for the creators and for the users of the work that comes under copyright legislation.

The process, unfortunately, went further off track in my judgment in that the committee also decided, against my protestations, to have the selection of witnesses in camera. There was a deletion of concerned parties to the bill. There was a period of time when there was a tremendous amount of unhappiness about that.

I must say that during the process of the crammed committee hearings there developed a tremendous spirit of co-operation among the members of the committee.

As with the member who spoke before me, I would like to pay tremendous respect to the members of the committee from all parties who worked in that spirit of co-operation. I would particularly like to say that the work of the parliamentary secretary and the work of the chair of the committee aided the process, and I commend them for that.

It was unfortunate that the spirit of co-operation, although it was leading to a very productive process of making necessary changes and improvements to the bill, ended up being seriously side tracked. As a matter of fact, it was fully derailed in a massive train wreck by the heritage minister.

It seems to me that basically what happened was she came to the conclusion that since becoming heritage minister she really had not accomplished anything and suddenly decided-

Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of co-operation and in the spirit of the rules and regulations of the House the hon. member has some flexibility. However, to openly get into a debate and criticize other hon. members of the House with respect to the process I do not believe is fair. I do not think that is called for at report stage. It is more of a political debate and I think we should address ourselves to what is on the table.

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, what I am trying to say is that the process we are now in, unfortunately, is being driven by the government and the procedures of the House. Opposition members have to have their motions in place by 6.00 p.m. the day prior to debate at report stage whereas, by virtue of the standing rules, the government only has to show the motions at the very last minute.

(1055)

I would like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen dated December 13, 1996 concerning our situation in committee: ``However, because most of the amendments were only circulated to committee members and not to the media or a room full of lawyers and lobbyists that have been following this bill since April, exact details will not be known until February, heritage officials said on Thursday''.

With deference to the parliamentary secretary I will try to defuse this simply by quoting what Michael McCabe, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said on Thursday. He said last minute amendments could cost his industry $6 million or more and accused the heritage minister of going back on her word and so on and so forth.

The point is I have seen for the very first time in my short parliamentary career since 1993 a committee and a process that was working and was being productive. I have commended all the members as well as the people who came and the officials of the respective departments. This should be an non-partisan issue. This should be a non-partisan bill because it has so much impact on so many people in Canada.

However, the fact that there were last minute amendments, the fact that there were behind the curtain discussions between certain people in that committee process, the fact that only this morning were we made aware of the number of changes being proposed by the government, this basically creates a situation where this bill is so badly fouled up and flawed that I do not see we are ever going to make any sense of it.

Furthermore, if we are going to patch this bill back together at all we simply must have more time to digest what the government has brought forward. We simply must have more time to have intelligent debate on this issue. It is far too important to far too many Canadians.

As a consequence, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the members.

(1125 )

After the taking of the vote:

Mr. Vanclief: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think there were some members who came into the House after you read the question and they voted. There were others who came into the House after you read the question who did not vote. I would suggest that those who came in, took their seat and voted after the question was read have their name removed from the list.

Mr. Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I was one of those who came in late and did not vote and I would like my vote recorded with my party.

Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, on account of the vote being held ahead of schedule, I missed the vote. Had I been here I would have voted with my party.

Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, had I been in the House when the vote was taken I would have voted with my party.

Mr. Maloney: Madam Speaker, I also came in late. I guess the vote was moved up a bit. Had I been here I would have voted with my party as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I was late, but had I been here I would have voted with my party.

Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I am in the same situation as the member for Bourassa.

(1130)

[English]

Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, had I been here on time I would have voted with my party on the motion.

Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, I arrived here on time and I did vote with my party.

Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, when I arrived at my seat, the whips were just passing by. In view of the technicality that I may not have been in my seat at the proper time, I did vote in support of the motion but if I was late then I would stand on record as having supporting this motion.

Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I was here on time. I just want to make sure you know I did vote with my party.

Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, since a 30 minute bell is now a 24 minute period I would like to go on record as supporting this motion.

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, a further problem we have compounding this vote is that some members who voted before the announcement of the vote have left the Chamber again. The Minister of National Defence is one but there are perhaps others. I do not think that is in order. I am not sure what we should do about that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In order to vote, members have to be in their seats at the moment that the question is put and stay in their seats until the result of the vote is pronounced by the clerk.

Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, due to the confusion because of the timing of the bell and the early walk by the whips and because it appears that some members voted who were not in their seats in accordance with the directive you just put, and that some members left after voting before the results were read, I move that we vote again.

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I know it is your duty of course to maintain order and to make sure things are done in an orderly fashion. There is some problems with members having left before the vote was announced.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On that point of order I have already clarified. There are some members who have left and there were some members who were not in the House when I called the question and still they did not rise. We will now go to the result of the question.

(1135 )

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the clarification of the rules. I would like now to ask you what we do if the rules have been contravened. What do we do if several people have voted on the motion and have left the House? If we know of such people, or if

there are such people, how will you know who they are? I know the rules, but how will you know who they are if they have left the House? What do you do about that?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will now ask the clerk to read the results of the vote and thereafter we will proceed with any other points of order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 259)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion defeated.

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I still would like you to explain how we know for use if that vote was the vote which accurately reflected the vote of the number of people who stayed in their seats until the vote was announced. I mentioned one person specifically who left the Chamber before the announcement of the vote. That person, of course, cannot be counted. Because of what took place, I do not know if that person was counted or not. I brought it to your attention but I am not sure if it is included in the 84 or not.

I would like you to let me know how I can be sure who got called and who voted where because some people left in the middle of it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is not a written rule but a question of convention and I think of respect for the responsibility of the House to be in your seat at the time the question is called and to remain in your seat. It is a question of respect and convention. It does not invalidate the results of the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of order raised by my colleague from the Reform Party. I think the only way to respond to his question is to see tomorrow who voted. And if they think someone was absent, they can then raise it in the House. I imagine that the person who is absent will say he was, and we will see whether that changes the outcome.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I think what we are seeing here today is the fruit of three years of sloppiness with respect to this rule. It used to be very hard and fast, even though not a rule but a convention, that people would have to be in the House and would not be able to leave until the results of the vote were read.

(1140 )

I have noticed that in this Parliament, and maybe even toward the end of the last Parliament, this rule became more and more relaxed. People were coming in and going out. We cannot decide, all of a sudden, that today we are going to enforce the convention that, frankly, almost everyone has been ignoring for three years.

If we want to restore that convention, I think it would be a good idea but we need to say collectively that we want to restore and respect that convention.

In the same vein there is another convention, that there is a30 minute bell and the vote is taken after 30 minutes. If we want to start playing around with that convention, as we did today, through the collusion between the government and the official opposition, then we will have a real problem on our hands. I do not sit on committees, but for the sake of people who are on committees, who are hearing witnesses, they may proceed to hear a witness because they know they have 15 minutes, but when they get here they find the vote has already taken place. Do we want to introduce another

dimension of unpredictability into what is already an unpredictable place? I think that would be a serious mistake.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on this but I also ask all members of the House to reflect on this. Once we start to play around with a convention it slips away and we have another layer of chaos on top of an already very chaotic place. I see what has happened today as being very regrettable.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I thank the hon. member for his point of order. We will do some research on this convention and we will report back to the House on our findings.

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, if the House would give its consent to refer the matter you just described to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination, that committee could report back to the House about the convention and make a recommendation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am informed that the committee does have the power to do that if it so wishes.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall also apply to Motions Nos. 8 to 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.

The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(1145)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on Motion No. 48 stands deferred.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, did you call for debate on that motion? It seems that you read the motion and you just said, ``all those in favour''. Did you call for debate?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It was debated. It was part of Group No. 1. There was a motion put to stop the debate, and Motion No. 48 is part of that vote. All the questions on the motions in Group No. 1 have been put.

Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, may I request clarification on Motion No. 48? You are correct that debate began after the motion was moved and after the House gave its consent to the moving of that motion as part of the first group. When you called the vote, I heard many nays. I did not hear one yea. Does that mean the motion was defeated?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division has been deferred until the end of the debate.

Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, has Motion No. 49 in Group No. 1 been voted on?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Motion No. 48 will be voted on separately and in consequence Motion No. 49 will be voted on according to the result of the vote on Motion No. 48. The vote on Motion No. 49 depends on the outcome of the vote on Motion No. 48.

Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, we completed the vote on Motion No. 48 already. It was defeated unanimously-

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It was deferred. The entire group was deferred. Motion No. 48 was deferred. Motion No. 49 is deferred automatically.

Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I do not want to delay things but I have the report stage order from the Table. It says that the question on Motion No. 49 is put if the question on Motion No. 48 is negatived. Motion No. 48 was negatived but Motion No. 49 was not put.

Before we move on to Group No. 2, I would ask that the question on Motion No. 49 be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I repeat to the hon. parliamentary secretary that the vote on Motion No. 48 has been deferred.

We will now move to Group No. 2.

(1150 )

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 5 with the following:

``(a) section 3, in the case of a work, or''

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 7.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-32, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 38 on page 16, 1 to 48 on page 17, 1 to 43 on page 18, 1 to 40 on.page 19, 1 to 44 on page 20, 1 to 14 on page 21, 6 to 45 on page 22, 1 to 44 on page 23, 1 to 40 on page 24, 1 to 44 on page 25 and 1 to 16 on page 26.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 76 with the following:

``do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21,''

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 76 with the following:

``mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the''

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-32, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 77 with the following:

``person to do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the case may be, the collective''

An hon. member: Conflict.

Mr. Solberg: I want to declare my background right off the bat so that people do not suggest I am in conflict, which I thought I heard from across the way.

As someone who comes from a broadcasting background, it is important to point out that there are many aspects of Bill C-32 that do not reflect the reality of broadcasting across the country today. Indeed, in Bill C-32 we see all kinds of impediments to doing what I think the government is hoping to do through this legislation. The government seems to want to protect the rights of copyright holders and to ensure that ultimately Canadian culture is strengthened. Unfortunately some aspects of Bill C-32 actually prevent that from happening and I want to touch on some of them.

One of the concerns I have as a broadcaster by trade, and I think I can speak with a little authority on this, is the whole aspect of time shifting. One of the concerns that broadcasters have raised over and over again is that the legislation does not permit broadcasters to delay the broadcast of a television or radio program and replay it at a later date without incurring additional expense and seeking the permission from the holders of the rights to do that.

It makes it extremely difficult for a small radio station or small broadcast outlet to seek the permission of the various rights' holders to do that. It escapes me why when there has been such a strong lobby from people in the broadcast industry to make what is just a common sense change that the government has failed utterly to do that.

I know some members on the other side are trying to make that happen and some amendments have been proposed. We are very happy that members on the other side are trying to do that. For nine years this legislation has been in the works. For nine years people have made the same point over and over again to successive governments. Apparently their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It is a common sense change.

(1155)

If that type of change is not made, it is going to hurt Canadian content. It is going to hurt the ability of broadcasters to broadcast local parades on the community cable channel. It is going to hurt the ability of broadcasters to do the sorts of things that have made them an integral part of the Canadian cultural scene. That is one of the major problems that many broadcasters have with this legislation.

Something else that concerns me very much is the whole idea of transfer of format. A new reality in the broadcast industry-it has been a reality for a few years now-is that many broadcasters have to transfer a recording from, for instance, a CD on to the electronic format, to the computer.

One of the things the government has resisted forever is allowing broadcasters the right to make that transfer without subjecting themselves to a legal challenge. In fact, broadcasters have raised that over and over again. It is quite possible that, by going ahead and transferring something from CD on to computer, the rights'

holders will then ask that they be paid for the privilege of having their music transferred on to a computer.

The computer then plays it over the air. Under that circumstance, broadcasters will have to pay the right's holder already. Potentially radio and television broadcasters are being charged a couple of times for something that really has only the effect of being played once on the air. In other words, the holder of the rights suffers no commercial loss. However, it imposes a tremendous burden on the broadcasters.

That is something that needs to be pointed out. Broadcasters have been very patient with the government on this point. They have raised it over and over ad nauseam. Somehow the government has failed to see the value in this approach. All the broadcasters are asking for is a common sense exemption.

In order to make the point more fully, it is important to mention the role that broadcasters play in the Canadian cultural scene. For a number of years, broadcasters have had regulations imposed on them whereby they have to play 30 per cent Canadian content. They play thousands and thousands, really millions, of hours worth of music every year to promote Canadian artists and composers. Under previous legislation, the composers received all kinds of money back from the broadcasters through the current copyright legislation.

The artists made millions of dollars by selling their records. There was a quid pro quo exchange between the broadcasters who were able to give the artists all kinds of what amounts to free promotion on the air and the radio stations were able to use the music to attract listeners and, ultimately, to sell advertising and make a profit.

It was a system that worked extremely well. For reasons that escape me, the government has decided to change something that is not broken, to fix a problem that did not need fixing and has caused a firestorm of controversy.

That has been reflected not only in opposition from parties like the Reform Party but even among Liberal ranks where a number of people have great concerns about what is being proposed. A number of members on the other side have propose amendments and have spoken out quite strongly against this legislation.

That should not be lost on us because it takes considerable courage to do that in the Liberal Party, knowing that the government may slap sanctions on those members. Some of them will not be rewarded when it comes time for the Prime Minister to hand out some of the goodies that he is able to hand out. We should note that they have done this. It points to how serious they feel an assault it is on their community radio stations and ultimately on the cultural sector.

(1200)

For a number of years radio stations in Canada have been in a perilous position. Many of them lose money today. Most AM radio stations are in a position where they simply cannot make ends meet. The government is somehow insensitive to this fact and is slapping all kinds of new regulations on broadcasters of various sizes. The ultimate result will be that they will be bearing new costs.

We have made a point of saying over and over and over again that high taxes and regulation kill jobs in the Canadian economy. I do not think we want to kill the jobs created by Canadian radio stations that provide tremendous services to their local communities, reflect the values of their local communities, and completely bring together all disparate strands in the local community in one place so that people understand what is happening on a daily basis, in fact every minute of every day. This is something that happens through no other media form.

We should be sensitive to this point and ensure that bills like Bill C-32 do not end up killing a very important institution like Canadian radio broadcasting.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate to clarify a few points.

There was some concern in the Reform Party with regard to the ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions. That opinion was expressed in committee by a number of members. The government listened to the members, our caucus, the opposition and the witnesses, and they are in the bill. There is an ephemeral exception. There is a transfer of format exception. I take the member at his word. If they are in there he will support them and the process will be speedy. That is why they are there. That is part of the negotiation game.

After the amendments came out of the committee in December there were concerns that perhaps telethons and Santa Claus parades were not protected. We felt they were already in the bill, but the government decided to clarify them even more. The amendments are there.

With regard to whether they got the amendments late and did not get a chance to analyse them, to a certain extent that is fair game but in written form they only had them today.

Last evening I had a chance to indicate to the hon. member that ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions, telethons or whatever were there and that I would be available to meet with him after to explain the amendments.

We are parliamentarians. There should be respect and honour in this place. The bill is before the House. We were fair with the way

in which we handled a situation the Reform Party asked about this morning. We collaborated and we would like to see the same collaboration.

For instance, putting up speakers for the sake of speaking is not a way of collaborating. The hon. member who just spoke is very knowledgeable of the subject. He also spoke when it was first introduced in the House. I appreciate some of the comments he made. It gave me a chance to reflect.

However his comments would have been better placed in Group No. 7 which deals with ephemeral, transfer of format, telethons and radio stations rather than Group No. 2.

Mr. Solberg: I will speak then.

Mr. Arseneault: You have already spoken. I have heard that message.

We have clarified those aspects. There is ephemeral. There is transfer of format. I look forward to the support of the Reform Party on the bill rather than delay and delay and delay. The time has come to get on with it. There is other business of the House than Bill C-32 that we must get on with. This is a very important bill. The producers, the creators and the users have been waiting for the bill.

(1205)

What damage are we doing to the relationship between the creators and the users if we continually say that this is here and that is there and it is not so? It is important to create a good working relationship. Both sides want this clarified now, right away.

That is what we are doing. We have put forward the bill. We have our amendments and we are putting them forward today. Let us clarify it and get on with the work of the House so that the creators and the users can get on with their business as well.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-32.

The first time I spoke in the House, on January 24, 1994, I immediately announced where I stood. I said: ``Moving to the complex issue of copyright, I would like to point out that creators are currently out in the cold and that the government will have to act quickly by tabling as soon as possible a bill to correct this unfortunate situation''.

I am delighted that the government has tabled this bill, that we are now at report stage and that very extensive amendments have been made. We know that we will have to keep up our efforts, because the bill is not completely finished, there will be a Phase III, but I am very pleased to see Phase II being wrapped up.

I would urge the third party to give its co-operation so that we can proceed with debate on a non-partisan basis and move quickly to give creators in Canada a bill that will help them improve their living conditions.

I think it extremely important that we leave partisan politics behind in this issue, and it is upsetting that the member for Medicine Hat spent 10 minutes telling us that he comes from a broadcasting background and forgot to mention that the bill requires a radio station to make over $1.25 million in advertising revenue before it is required to pay royalties. In other words, the station is required to pay only $100.

He spoke for 10 minutes but did not mention this fundamental fact. It is an objective piece of information contained in the bill and I think the member for Medicine Hat acted in very bad faith by failing to mention it when he spoke in the House.

The purpose of Bill C-32 is to amend the Copyright Act, which was passed in 1924. The first review of this act, in 1988, solved certain problems, notably by increasing creators' moral rights over their works and recognizing the organization of copyright holders into collective societies. The mandate of these societies is to authorize, on behalf of their members, public performances and reproductions, and to collect and distribute royalties or levies payable in exchange for these authorizations.

Society has evolved considerably since then, and there have been artistic, technological and legal developments in the cultural industry. Internationally, intellectual property has become a resource just as important as money or natural resources. New techniques have led to an explosion in artistic distribution and it is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that creators are protected by law.

The Bloc Quebecois has resolutely supported creators in all sectors of the cultural industry. Our efforts seem to have been successful because a number of amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois have been adopted by the heritage committee in one form or another, and we are pleased that we have kept a watchful eye on this bill so that there is finally something to show for creators in Canada.

The bill's amendments to the Copyright Act deal primarily with recognition of performers' and producers' neighbouring rights, the establishment of royalties for private copies and the definition of exceptions to creators' rights.

(1210)

I mentioned earlier that when radio stations broadcast music or songs, authors and composers receive copyright fees, while performers, musicians and producers do not. Bill C-32 provides a remedy in this respect. Now, musicians, performers and producers will also benefit from neighbouring rights.

These rights are recognized in the 50 countries that signed the Rome Convention. Once Parliament has passed this bill, Canada will be able to sign the convention, and our performers will also be able to benefit from this protection when their work is distributed abroad, and collect royalties as well.

According to a report prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage, neighbouring rights are an important tool for the future, especially with the advent of digital cable radio which will broadcast good music, uninterrupted by radio hosts or commercials. This type of broadcast will be a major source of income for artist-performers and record producers if the neighbouring rights system is introduced. That is why it is so important to proceed diligently with this bill.

Most payments for neighbouring rights will indeed be made by radio stations. As I said before, the bill provides that their income must be in excess of $1.25 million before they have to pay royalties. Otherwise, the fee will be only symbolic, as it will be $100.

Another interesting point is that the bill provides for a legislative review of the act in five years, which will be an opportunity to make some adjustments based on our experience with this legislation. We believe, unlike the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that the concessions made to broadcasters are a little too generous and should perhaps be reviewed downward.

However, it is rather unfortunate that the government did not recognize this right in the case of creators in the audiovisual sector. I hope that in phase III, which will come as soon as possible, the emphasis will be mainly on the audiovisual sector and photography.

As for private copies, every year, millions of audio and video cassettes are sold in this country. Many customers use these cassettes to copy the works of creators without paying copyright, thus depriving them of their living.

For instance, out of 44 million blank audio cassettes sold in this country last year, it is estimated that 39 million were used to make private copies of sound recordings of composers or performers. These copies made at home apparently cost the audio recording industry as much as $324.7 million per year.

Fortunately, the bill provides some compensation by providing for a levy that will be collected from manufacturers or importers of blank audio tapes, and subsequently distributed among authors, composers, performers and record companies.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this kind of measure which already exists in 25 countries, and it has insisted that the amount of the levy be set by the Copyright Board, which is in a position to determine what is fair compensation for the creator, while allowing for the consumer's ability to pay. We appreciate the fact that the Copyright Board has been closely involved in the preparations for this bill and the follow-up, because so far, the board has shown that it is capable of doing an outstanding job.

However, we regret the fact that these rights do not apply as well to video tapes, which leaves creators in the audiovisual sector in limbo.

The bill provides that libraries, educational institutions, museums and archival services will, to a certain extent, be exempted from paying copyright.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that these exemptions which deprive the persons concerned of their due will be difficult to administer and may lead to court cases. Although the exempt institutions are concerned with education and culture, we believe that the support they need should come from government, and that authors who already pay taxes should not have to subsidize them by forgoing income.

(1215)

The Bloc Quebecois would have preferred to see the legislator leave the question of copyright to the various parties involved. The agreements currently in place between collective societies and users prove that this type of mechanism does work.

Nevertheless, the heritage committee is to be congratulated for having made great strides in tightening up the numerous exceptions in the original version of the bill.

Finally, we must point out the heritage committee's efforts to bring the bill more in line with the concerns of the interested parties. The Bloc Quebecois has presented some 75 amendments, a number of which were accepted by the government, which has finally lent an ear to the artists' legitimate demands. Let us hope that, in future, the government will accept the beneficial influence of the Bloc Quebecois in other areas.

The government must continue to modernize its legislation, and must begin right away to identify the modifications required for Canada to recognize neighbouring rights on videotapes, and the mechanisms required to protect the rights of our artists as the information highway expands.

[English]

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and these clauses today.

This bill has created a lot of problems for many of my constituents, across the whole range of the clauses dealt with in the bill. In particular, I received yesterday a letter from a company in my riding. That company, for the last 75 years, has been supplying bookstores. As a result of the changes which are being made by this bill, which they see as a major distortion of the marketplace under the excuse of protecting Canadian culture, the book market will be disrupted and it will be very bad for consumers.

This company and my constituents have urged me to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this bill will be a major disadvantage to consumers. It will protect Canadian distributors of books when libraries and universities could have much better direct access to wholesalers in the United States. The protectionism in the bill will not protect Canadian culture at all, it will simply drive up prices and create a very restrictive market within Canada.

I wanted to get that on record. Not only in the many areas that have been discussed earlier but in the area of book distribution this bill is a major problem.

Amendments were introduced today at a moment's notice to the House. We have not had the time to review them properly. We are appalled at the speed at which this bill is moving through the House.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak specifically to the issue of copyright performances, sound recordings and communication signals that are part of this clustering of motions we have.

Before I do that, however, I would say to the parliamentary secretary that there is within the parliamentary system the ability for members of Parliament to be able to converse with each other and to reveal what is coming so there is some prior notice. I respect that.

However, on the other side of the coin I would point to an obscure example but a very accurate one, that the Liberals would say they said they are in favour of an elected Senate and this is what they did with the Constitution and the Charlottetown accord. That measure fell far short of what we are asking for. To have said it is accurate, that the measure was there, but in fact it in no way reflected what we consider to be important.

While I respect and accept the hon. member's comment that there have been provisions put in place in response to some of the concerns that were expressed by me on behalf of our party and on behalf of users, on the other side of the coin the fact that I have not to this point had the opportunity to see what those things are and to pass judgment on what those things are is exactly the problem we are having at this time.

(1220 )

I accept that he would have said these things to me in good faith, that he would have said they have answered our concern. However, by the time this bill becomes an act, by the time it is law, there will be an interpretation either by the copyright board or by the courts.

On behalf of my party and people who have expressed their concerns to me, I want the opportunity to have even a couple of hours to understand the legal implications of the words the government is now coming forward with. It is for this reason that I have been as upset as I have this morning that at the very last minute the government has been trying to put patchwork on to this seriously flawed bill.

With respect to the motions before the House now, there are any number of issues we can speak about in terms of so-called neighbouring rights. For example, the end of clause 1 speaks of the Rome convention country. We do not share airwaves with people in Europe, nor do we share them with people in Australia and other signatories to the Rome convention.

My understanding is that drawing the performers in line with the Rome convention is very commendable. However, our radio stations are sharing airwaves with the people who border the 49th parallel. Until the U.S. decides, if it does decide, to go ahead with neighbouring rights, our broadcasters, in particular in the Windsor-Sarnia area, even in the Toronto area with the Buffalo and Rochester signals, in Montreal with the signals coming in from Vermont, will be at a serious disadvantage by comparison with their U.S. competitors. Many of their U.S. competitors are going after exactly the same advertising dollar.

In her presentation to committee the minister challenged me on behalf of my party. She said ``you say your party believes in property rights, that you would see the enshrinement of property rights''. A performance right is somewhat parallel to a property right. She was right.

This issue is a case of weighing out the advantage and the disadvantage. It is a case of weighing out who will be benefited or who will be hurt. We are taking a look at the value the performers actually receive from airplay. I grant there is a good argument but not an exceptionally strong argument. If I were to balance it out I would say it is probably 60 per cent in favour of the notion that performers who actually perform their works which are being broadcast should receive some direct recompense from the revenue driven by radio. In my humble judgment there is a 60:40 argument in favour of the artist.

Then I look at the entire picture of the value they receive of the airplay, which is the 40 per cent. People will go to the record store to buy the CDs or cassettes. There is a live performance factor that has been put into this by members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and there is a value that the performers receive. I see that we have close to a balance.

Then I look at the economic damage that will be done to the radio stations. I look at the fact that they are already paying over3 per cent in copyright. We do not know what percentage they will be open to. Will it be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent? I do not know what the percentage is going to be for these neighbouring rights.

(1225)

I looked at the people who are employed in the broadcast industry and the fact that there are many technologies including satellite where we can beam things up and down and have them broadcast at the local level. There are many labour saving devices such as being able to electronically file music that would normally be handled physically from CDs.

I looked at all the things that are happening electronically and if I were going to be investing in a broadcast facility I would be looking at the total picture. Where am I going to get this extra 1 per cent or 2 per cent that is going to be charged to me on my airplay for the performers? I would probably be driven to the conclusion in my decision making process, managing intelligently and well, that I would be better off to get some kind of electronic labour saving device that would probably remove some of the technical staff, some of the on air people.

In other words, this has the ability on one side of the coin to give a financial reward to performers but at what cost to the bottom line of the radio stations and particularly at what cost to the people who are working in those radio stations? I see this as being a well intentioned move, warm and fuzzy, but I see it as ultimately being very dangerous and very possibly a job killer.

I would invite all members to take a serious look at this and to follow the motions that have been put forward by the Reform Party and vote to repeal the neighbouring rights section of Bill C-32.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-32. Before I get into my presentation I think it is proper to mention once again that the procedure we are going through today is really an affront to people who like to do a good job of analyzing legislation, who like to go into detail and make detailed amendments. There are obviously several things wrong.

First, the bill is so hopelessly flawed that the Minister of Industry and the minister of neighbouring rights spend time in the papers decrying one another's position. There is not even unanimity in the cabinet on this bill. This bill is not the answer for the broadcasting industry in Canada.

Today we have had phone calls in Reform Party offices from both sides. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has problems with neighbouring rights and with some of the provisions of the bill as originally tabled. SOCAN, the society of Canadian artists, also has concerns in favour of neighbouring rights. Between the two we find they are both against it for exactly the opposite reasons. One group is against it because it says it gives to much power or too much economic deterrent to playing Canadian content. Canadian artists are saying that this does not give enough power and coinage in the pockets of artists.

What do we take from this? I think we take from this that the government has botched this bill from the beginning to the end. The government does not have support in the broadcasting industry. It does not have support among artists. Who then is the government doing it for? What is the purpose of this bill?

(1230 )

Every time the Canadian heritage minister muses in the press about what she would like to see the broadcasting industry look like, the alarm bells go off from one end of the country to the other, for different reasons. When she muses, as she did a couple of week ago, that perhaps we should double the amount of Canadian content on the radio, what happens then?

I can tell members what happens. The broadcasters in my area tell me that there is a limited amount of Canadian content. What we have is pretty good stuff and people enjoy it. But if broadcasters are asked to play twice as much, they are going to take the songs which are already heavily played and play them every other time.

If we hear Celine Dion-and I like Celine Dion, I have her tapes and her CDs-her songs would have to be played every second time because there is not enough Canadian content to double the amount without causing chaos in the industry.

When you live in an area like I do, or like most Canadians do, within broadcasting distance of the United States, the government can only jack around the listener so much until the listener says: ``You know, I do not have to listen to this. I have choices. I can crank my dial''.

Advertising dollars are now going down to Bellingham because people are saying: ``I just cannot put up with this any more. I do not have any say about what kind of stuff is going on the radio. There is so much government regulation and bureaucracy that I am not sure of the quality of the product. The regulations, the hoop-jumping is so onerous, what is the point?'' Therefore, advertisers are not putting their money into Canadian markets, they are putting into neighbouring markets, taking it south of the border and it is being beamed back into Canada.

Our advertising dollars are flowing south when they should, in my case, be staying in Chilliwack and Abbotsford and recirculated there. A lot of the advertisers and broadcasters are losing heart.

When the minister starts musing in the press about doubling the amount of Canadian content it sends a shiver up everybody's spine. They wonder what on earth she is talking about. There is not enough content to do that.

Another musing by the minister is when she talks about Canadian content. The rules are so screwy that with stars like Celine Dion and Bryan Adams, their music cannot be played because it is

not Canadian enough. They are Canadians. They qualify as Canadians and I do not think anybody is going to deny that. However, they are not Canadian enough under the rules.

What happens? Bryan Adams, whose producer may not be Canadian, does not get the Canadian content benefit because he has too many banjo players or whatever who are not Canadians. He cannot meet the rules. That person is cut off and does not qualify as a Canadian artist. Again, that is a shame because a lot of Canadians identify Bryan Adams as a Canadian rock star and think they should be able to listen to him and call him a Canadian artist, as I do.

Furthermore, when the minister went so far as to say that if it was not for the kinds of rules we are debating today, Celine Dion would be picking berries in some backwoods somewhere, never having achieved stardom, well, I do not know. Every time I see Celine Dion or listen to her music, I think this superstar blows the socks off most of the world with some of the best selling CDs, records and tapes of all time. To think that the minister said there was no way she could have made it if we had not had these content rules or this kind of regulation is farcical. It is just not true. No one can possibly believe that Celine Dion would be anything but a superstar regardless. That is my second point.

(1235)

The first point concerned her musing about doubling the amount of Canadian content that must be played. That is just not possible. I do not know what she is doing. It scares the pants off a lot of broadcasters in Canada and it is something I wish she would refrain from doing because of the sight that would be.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there is an inconsistency between what she is demanding and what the industry minister is demanding. The industry minister wants to strengthen the industry without getting into the malarkey that has been proposed in this bill and others. It is one thing to strengthen the industry but it is another to just throw rules in its way so they can neither do business or industry or broadcasting well.

The third thing I would like to mention is a concern of the broadcasters with regard to transferring music from CDs to digital computers. I have been through the Fraser Valley Broadcasting Group facilities a couple of times. It has had a complete technological revolution in the last three years. There has been a complete upheaval in the industry. It is an upheaval that involves the computer and digital recording. It also involves the opening up of a competitiveness between the players and the industry that are trying to play by the rules that this minister seems to dream up on her way to the coffee shop in the morning.

The industry needs stability. It needs to know that when it wants to transfer this stuff from CD to digital it can. It wants to know that it is not going to contravene some rules. It does not want to sort of get away with it when technically it is at fault. That is the problem with this bill. There are so many amendments, so many mistakes and it is so poorly drafted that everyone, from broadcasters to artists to consumers to legislators, are concerned enough that they are saying this bill should be stopped until it is cleaned up and the direction of it clearly given and that has not been done.

The minister should withdraw this bill until she has assured all the players that something proper is going to be done.

Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this bill as it is currently constituted is of great concern to broadcasters. It is of great concern in respect to neighbouring rights.

There is a reduction in the neighbouring rights phase-in period. It removes the criteria that would require that the value of air play and volume of music use be factored into neighbouring future rights tariffs.

There is a rebalancing in light of the ephemeral exception. Particularly the radio end of it sees it as being too narrow a proposal. Many of us in this arena certainly use radio to a fair degree. I know it is probably the major media, other than the print media, in many of our experiences.

Many small radio stations in the country perform a very valuable service. Indeed, those radio stations need to transfer their medium on occasion. Many of them are using 30-year old technology. As a consequence, they are trapped into making these ephemeral changes. It is a major upgrade to get away from that. It is certainly not doing anyone any harm that they continue with this.

(1240 )

I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that is worthwhile for me to operate from in this area.

Certainly these private radio broadcasters and some of the private television broadcasters wish to counter any suggestion that the proposed amendment meets broadcasters requirements as they have articulated them. This material has been conveyed to the government and there is still great concern about the present wording of the clause.

It was not very long ago when I was spending some time in my vehicle and heard an interview on CBC radio. Many Canadians enjoy CBC radio. I am one of them. The value of CBC radio to Canadian broadcasters in the development of Canadian recording artists and so on became readily apparent in the anecdotal evidence that was being presented by artists, by people doing the recordings, by promoters and by others.

Sometimes we lose sight of what is the key issue in levelling the playing field or developing Canadian artists. One of the other examples that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters talk about has to do with episodes of local talent or variety shows. These are

taped in clusters for broadcast throughout the season to make them economically viable.

This bill, as it currently reads, requires that these tapes be destroyed 30 days after taping rather than as it is in competing countries like the U.S. and the U.K. where time starts running after the first broadcast. This seems like a very legitimate concern.

Then the association gives some other specific examples. Very often, rather than talking in broad terms if we can actually look to examples, we can see the flaws in what is being proposed in legislative and other initiatives much better.

This letter talks about CKCO's Kitchener Octoberfest parade. This is recorded by a station and tape delayed for time zone purposes by corporate sister companies in the west, part of the Baton Broadcasting in this case. The exception only applies to stations in formal networks of which there are very few in Canada.

Mr. Arseneault: We have changed that. We clarified it.

Mr. Duncan: Thank you. Programs and program segments recorded without a public audience such as spots to promote Canadian musicians on CTV's ``Canada AM'' and so on state in this letter that because the exception tries to restrict itself to event programming and does so by requiring a public performance at the same time as a reproduction is made, this also constitutes lack of qualification for this kind of programming.

The broadcasters talk about some other absurdities, as they call them, in the bill. They are highlighted by a requirement that copies of these ephemeral reproductions can only be kept beyond 30 days if an official archive accepts their deposits on the basis of their exceptional documentary character.

(1245 )

Broadcasters really should be allowed to keep their own archival copies in house. I think this would be a great loss to Canadian society if we were to create this kind of concern. They would like to reuse them possibly in the future and they would be quite happy to pay a licence fee at that time. This would also of course create quite a burden for national archives should this kind of provision remain.

The bottom line of what the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is saying is that unless these flaws are corrected, programming would remain at risk because of the administrative burdens and the economic burdens through trying to clear this hurdle on rights clearance.

This would affect Canadian viewers who want to have a good look at programs about their local area. It would affect charities relying on broadcast based fund raising. It would have its impact on Canadian talent and there are other provisions that would be detrimental to French language music and programming. These would be the main people who would suffer the neighbouring rights provisions.

I find this whole episode this morning of most concern. I know this bill and these amendments are of great concern to many Canadians. Sometimes what goes on in this place ends up in the form of partisan gamesmanship or something quite non-productive. It is my hope and my wish that we can move forward, make the enlightened amendments that are required in order to make this a bill that Canadians will find progressive, productive and that will indeed assist Canadian broadcasting, Canadian artists, Canadian recorders and so on.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 5 in Group No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division shall also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 50, 51 and 52.

(1250)

Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-32, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41 on page 14 with the following:

``(2) A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have

(a) copies of the work issued to the public,

(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

(c) the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service, and a person who does or authorizes the doing of any of those acts, without the consent of the person who commissions the photograph or film, infringes that right.''

The aim of neighbouring rights is to afford performing artists and production houses the protection enjoyed by the citizens of the countries that signed the Rome Convention and to ensure that performing artists and producers receive fair and equitable royalties when they work, whether they are interpreting the works of creators or authors or producing their own works.

This has long been awaited and requested by artists. They were totally forgotten in Quebec and Canada when 50 countries signed the Rome Convention, which provides artists with a salary. I do not need to remind this House, and particularly my Reform colleagues, that the average annual salary of artists is between $7,000 and $13,000 per year.

Our objective was to ensure that the introduction of neighbouring rights did not penalize certain stations with lower revenues or facing difficult financial situations. We in the official opposition would have preferred the government leave the matter with the Copyright Board. The government preferred to set a floor or a ceiling in order to exempt a number of radio stations.

Our Reform colleagues make no mention of this important element of the bill, which provides that radio stations with $1.25 million or less in advertising revenues will pay only $100 a year in neighbouring rights. When I hear our Reform colleagues talking about the risk of stations closing and of jobs being lost, I think that is bad faith.

Neighbouring rights, I remind you, are those paid to performers and producers. They have been ignored for decades, although they are recognized by over 50 countries. We must at least understand that there is a whole category of artists called performers, who work and are not getting paid. They get no return on their work, because it is played on the radio or elsewhere.

These people are entitled to a fair income for their work, like everyone in society who works and is paid a fair wage. I have a hard time understanding the Reform Party's objection to people living or trying to live off their work as artists. The Reformers are defending the radio stations at all cost, crying wolf, saying that neighbouring rights will force stations everywhere to close, causing a loss of jobs.

(1255)

This is crying wolf, because, after evaluation-and my own and others' discussions with representatives of radio stations-this significant $1,250,000 exemption means that the bulk of stations will simply be charged $100 annually, which does not jeopardize them in any way. Let us be clear on this: it does not jeopardize them in any way, contrary to what the Reform Party claims.

I would like to focus particularly on the Bloc's amendment in Group No. 3 of motions, reminding the government that it is merely intended to ensure that photographers are recognized as the author, on the same footing as other creative artists are by the bill.

I would like to point out this extremely important aspect, because the photographers themselves have been trying to gain recognition as artists for decades.

I invite the government to support my amendment on this. There is even a museum of photography here in the national capital. We know how the magazines use professional photographers for exhibitions. We know how some photographers have earned international acclaim as artists on the basis of their works. How can it be that the government has not yet lent an ear to the photographers, and included them in the bill and recognized them as artists?

In order to ensure proper attention to this, the Bloc motion provides that, when a person has a series of photographs taken of the family, the children, etc, it is clearly stated that the person who pays the photographer has ownership of the photos and therefore owns the work, and not the photographer.

In all cases, however, where photographers take pictures with a view to displaying them as works of art, it strikes me as completely logical in 1997, after decades of efforts to gain recognition, that photographic artists finally be recognized in the bill.

We moved this amendment because the bill lacked any clause recognizing photographers as artists and creators, and I hope the government will support our amendment and give recognition to photographers.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, when this bill came forward, a tremendous number of people were concerned about it, including the photographers. One of their concerns was the lack of protection for their works. As I look at Motion No. 4 put forward by the Bloc member for Richmond-Wolfe, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois is infringing on ordinary contractual agreements that can be made between people.

The Bloc is really asking in this bill that there be a virtual interference with the ability of people to come to their own conclusions, arrive at their own agreements and work forward from that point. The member has brought forward a very restrictive motion. For example, Motion No. 4: ``A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public'', and I do not understand the Bloc's thought process here, ``the work

exhibited or shown in public, or the work broadcast or included in a cable program service''.

(1300 )

The reason I am saying I do not understand the Bloc's thought process is that realistically there should be an agreement between two consenting parties. When I look at the inclusion of the clause by the government I find myself far more in agreement with the position of the government. The reason is simply that it speaks about the exchange of value for consideration. The consideration was paid pursuant to the order and in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the person for whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of copyright.

It sets up a pecking order that would work well to resolve situations between contracting parties as opposed to the Bloc amendment which sets up restrictions that people would actually have to negotiate away.

This is a concern. Photographers made presentations to us in committee, to me personally and to, I am sure, many other members. They pointed out that in a lot of instances when they lose control of the negative their work has the potential of being compromised.

I think of a situation in my constituency where a chap has had a photograph reproduced many times in many magazines. As a matter of fact it was actually made significantly larger and reproduced in poster format. It was the picture of a helicopter soaring above the clouds in the mountains taken from the mountainside. It is very dramatic. Imagine his chagrin that he has no way to recapture it.

We have been critical and continue to be very critical of the way in which the government has handled Bill C-32. Many portions of the act have created imbalances in both directions. It is being held together with chewing gum and baling wire. Nonetheless this is a clause included by the government that I would see the Reform Party being able to support fully.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Richmond-Wolfe which reads:

That Bill C-32, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 4 on page 14 with the following:

This amendment would replace a part of Bill C-32 which, for the most part, seems well crafted. It mentions an exchange or a contractual agreement between two parties, which is a property right. It talks about the necessity of the arrangement and how one person can obviously enter into a contract on a photograph. It includes photographs as a piece of property and is a good amendment.

It has the support of most people. Professional photographers or someone who commissions a photograph should have some proprietary rights to it. It should not be used willy-nilly without their say. If there is not some kind of control professional photographers, except for the initial photograph, would have no protection from leeches who could steal their work, publish it in papers, copy it and make their pound of flesh from the artistic ability of the photographers in question.

(1305 )

The problem with the amendment is that it is written in the negative. They would have the right not to have. That is a poor way to describe a right someone has. The amendment is crafted backward. It should be crafted in the affirmative. It should talk about what the person has the right to do, not about what the person does not have the right to do. It is a poor way to describe that right of photographers.

To get into the body of the proposed amendment, where copyright subsists in the resulting work I am not sure if that is the same as what exists. I guess it means it can be or it could be copyrightable. I am not sure if that is wise. Copyright rules are designed so that one has to copyright something before one gets the rights to it.

Be that as it may, as we get into the body of the amendment we see that part A talks about copies of the work being issued to the public. The intent there is proper. It would protect someone from having a photograph in a gallery beside the Chateau or anywhere else in Canada retaken, recopied, sold as a work of art and profiting from it. I assume issued to the public would include things like issued for sale and not just for presentation or whatever they are doing to receive a benefit. There should be a contractual agreement. Part A is relatively easy to agree with.

Part B is the work exhibited or shown in public. This is a worthwhile amendment in that it protects people who may not want their works broadly distributed. It protects those who may want a limited audience for their photographs. It may have been very private or personal. It may be one of a kind. All photographs are but it may be something for their pleasure only.

Under that amendment they would think their work would not be shown without their permission. I think of everything from very personal photographs of babies or loved ones or some horrific pictures of car accidents they do not want rebroadcast for public gain, for propaganda purposes or for a dollar value. It is something

they do not want rebroadcast. It should be their right to step in and say they do not want that to happen.

Part C refers to the work broadcast being included in the cable program service. One concern about the Copyright Act that I have heard expressed by local cable companies is the infringement of their rights. I am thinking of a local cable service in my riding that does a good job of broadcasting public events. It is almost a public service. It works almost exclusively with volunteers. It rebroadcasts events of all kinds including parades, other public events and showings and local fairs. It takes its cameras to 4-H Club presentations. It is a real public service.

In towns such as mine with about 60,000 to 70,000 people the cable service becomes a community service. It is not a money maker per se. We count on the cable service broadcasting council meetings, for example, and all the other items I mentioned.

(1310 )

When such a work is included in a cable program service sometimes it is inadvertent. The broadcast of a 4-H demonstration or whatever could include original works of art or original photographs that are contest prizes. They could rebroadcast on the cable system, as paragraph (c) mentions, which could almost inadvertently infringe on somebody's rights.

In my riding these shows are often rebroadcast four or five times during the week to ensure they hit all the target audience. The concern expressed to me was about what would happen if the Santa Claus parade were rebroadcast and something copyrightable was infringed on.

There are no provisions. It is just thrown out that if the cable program services do it they are in trouble. If they repeat it four or five times they are really in trouble. They say that is unacceptable. They say they need the freedom as a community service to broadcast public events, public showings and so on. They feel that if people do not want their photograph or their product rebroadcast they cannot be expected to know that. They cannot stop the cameras, go up to someone and ask if it is all right to move past a painting or display. They cannot function in this way in a public event such as a fair, a Santa Claus parade or whatever. It is not possible.

They are concerned the Copyright Act does not give them the freedom they need to do their job as a community service. I have to agree with them.

Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment by the Bloc is a bit complicated. It amends a current amendment to the bill which amends subsection 13(2) of the act.

I have read the amendment several times. I have consulted with other people. I do not know if it is anything but what can be described as nebulous. The amendment is amending an amendment which is nebulous, to begin with.

I will try to explain what I mean. We are talking about engravings, photographs, portraits, plates and originals. The wording of the unamended amendment indicates that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the person by whom the plate or original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.

The question comes down to the ``by whom''. Is it the artist or the person ordering from the artist? Legal counsel would only be able to say that is unclear. It could be interpreted either way.

As a consequence we cannot build a concrete foundation on a sand foundation. It will not work. It is not that I wanted to compare the Bloc amendment to concrete necessarily, but I had a duty to point that out.

(1315 )

I assume that the intent of the Bloc's amendment is to empower the artist. However, we may already be empowering the artist with the original amendment. If it is an attempt to overturn that amendment, that is one thing. If it is an attempt to strengthen it, that is another thing. I am not at all clear in which direction we are going.

In any case, there is a flaw. It is an important flaw. We want to attempt to achieve clarity in our legislation. We have all been in circumstances in which we have seen draft legislation come forward, and the constructive readings of that draft legislation can come from the most unpredictable sources.

In one of the committees on which I sit a government bill was introduced that turned out to be so badly drafted when it got to committee that it was withdrawn and has yet to come back to committee. That was several months ago.

There are lots of precedents. We all know this can happen. It is important for us to look once again at this clause.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 4.

[English]

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-32, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing

a) line 29 on page 27 with the following:

``27.1 (1) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), it is an''

b) line 1 on page 28 with the following:

``(2) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (6), where the''

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 96 the following:

``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), paragraph 45(1)(e) of the Copyright Act, as enacted by section 28 of this Act, shall be read as follows for the period beginning on June 30, 1996 and ending on the day that is sixty days after the day on which this Act is assented to:

(e) to import copies, made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where they were made, of any used books.''

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-32, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 26 on page 62 with the following:

``where they were made, of any used books.''

Motion No. 60 is a government motion. Motions Nos. 6 and 60 are both technical amendments. Motion No. 6, is a consequential amendment. It makes a correction to a subsection added to the bill by the committee.

(1320)

Motion No. 44 by the member for Kootenay East in the name of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona is about used books. It claims that used books could not be imported and things of that nature. I would like to correct that perception.

The bill does not prohibit the importation of used textbooks. Rather, it provides a safeguard should the importation of certain used textbooks become a problem. The amendment made by the standing committee ensures that Canada can continue to maintain control over its own marketplace. It is a very solid safeguard and the concerns of members should be looked after with regard to that amendment.

Motion No. 60 in the name of the government is a consequential amendment, one that all parties will probably accept as well as the other one. It ensures that an amendment made by the committee will not be retroactive to June 30, 1996. I know many members have spoken against retroactivity in the past including members of the Reform Party, Bloc Quebecois and the independent members present. I suggest to them again that it would be wise to support this amendment.

With regard to Motion No. 44, the government will be indicating its decision but personally it is a no vote. We are not in favour of Motion No. 44 because the bill itself guarantees protection and there is a safeguard in there to make sure that our marketplace is not distorted when it comes to used books.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, specifically to Group No. 4 amendments.

At the outset I wish I could share the confidence of the hon. parliamentary secretary that the clause I am going to speak on is not going to be a problem for students. I do not see that when I read the bill. I take exception to his confidence that it is not going to be a problem.

Motion No. 44 effectively deletes the second part of clause 45(e) which deals with import copies made with the consent of the owner and the copyright in the country where they were made of any used books. Then it goes on to say except textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution in a course of instruction. That is the clause which is the problem.

Clause 45 in the bill addresses the issue of exclusive distributors in Canada. If a copyright owner has selected a Canadian publisher to distribute his or her work in Canada, that publisher is an exclusive distributor. Clause 45(e) provides an exception to this and makes it lawful for individuals to import used books. That would be fine if this government had left it at that. Instead, the government has created an exception to the exception. It has specifically made it unlawful for individuals to import textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution such as colleges and universities.

What does this mean? The Liberal government has given into the pressures of the Canadian publishing industry at the expense of those who can at least afford it, the students. It is interesting to note that this amendment was pushed through at the last minute in

response to pressure from Canadian publishers. It is also interesting note that when the Canadian Booksellers Association appeared before the parliamentary committee considering Bill C-32 in October 1996 absolutely no mention was made of used textbooks. Instead, this amendment was added at a late date without any meaningful opportunity for interested parties such as booksellers and student associations to have input. That was shameful.

(1325)

Time and again this government has said that it is committed to young Canadians. This government has tried to make us believe that it is investing in the futures of young Canadians. For many young Canadians the future starts with university or college. Books are one essential part of higher education. As a parent whose daughter is currently in university I am only too familiar with the costs involved, tuition, books, living expenses. They all add up quickly. In a northern riding such as mine, Prince George-Peace River, the expenses can be much more if a student is forced to relocate in order to pursue a higher education.

Luckily my daughter has parental support, but many students do not. One way they can defray the high costs associated with university or college is to buy used textbooks. Because there are few Canadian suppliers of used textbooks, bookstores and students rely on a supply of used textbooks imported from the U.S.A.

The average price of a brand new text book is about $75, and even that seems low. I am well aware that many students face costs of hundreds of dollars for textbooks. It is estimated that the cost to students of purchasing new rather than used textbooks will be $5 million annually if this amendment is passed. This will only worsen the student debt problems that we are currently facing. On an individual level the effect of this amendment will be to increase the total amount a student spends on textbooks over the course of his or her degree by as much as $1,600. This is a huge blow to students and their parents.

Sixteen hundred dollars would pay for a whole semester of college or university. Sixteen hundred dollars could help students from more remote areas who have been forced to relocate to travel home for Christmas or for summer jobs. Not only do students buy used textbooks to save money, they sell them back to campus bookstores in order to recoup some of their money.

These textbooks are exported to distributors outside Canada. Canada currently exports more used textbooks than it imports so there is a balance of trade there. By restricting the importation of used textbooks this government is affecting this export trade. We can expect that if the import of used books stops, so will the export. Demand for used texts will fall and students will no longer be able to sell their books back to campus bookstores. This will result in an estimated loss to students of $2 million in revenue each and every year from the sale of used textbooks.

Canadian universities and colleges are increasingly relying on revenues from the sales of used books. Campus bookstores benefit twice from the sale of used textbooks. They get a commission on the purchase of used textbooks by the students and they get a margin on the later sale of reused textbooks to other students.

It has been estimated that lost revenues for Canadian academic institutions and their bookstores as a result of this Liberal amendment would be almost $600,000 each year. As we all know, decreased revenues are always passed on to the consumer in the form of reduced service and higher costs. In this case I reiterate that the consumers we are talking about are students.

Who will this amendment really help? The Canadian publishing industry seems to think it will protect them. However, despite what we have been led to believe Canada is not being overrun by foreign used textbooks. In 1995-96, 29 per cent of the used textbooks that were exported from and reimported into Canada were Canadian material. Canada is in effect recycling its own used textbooks.

The effect of this amendment will be to force students to buy brand new textbooks, most of which are published by American companies. Therefore the protection of Canadian interests argument does not hold water. I submit that the true effect of this amendment is to protect the profits of foreign owned new textbook publishers.

Another effect of this legislation will be to encourage Canadian students to photocopy their friend's textbooks rather than spend money on new ones. Students who resent being forced to purchase new textbooks or who simply cannot afford them will no doubt pick the cheaper option and head to the photocopier. Who could blame them?

(1330)

Surely this is a step backward for copyright protection. Not only does this raise concerns from the student perspective, it also raises concerns under NAFTA. The amendment would interfere with trade based solely on geography rather than content or intellectual property rights, thereby offending the national treatment provisions of NAFTA.

Clearly this amendment, which restricts the import of used textbooks into Canada, does little for anyone other than foreign new textbook publishers. All it does is unfairly penalize Canadian students, colleges and universities while at the same time failing to have any positive effects on the Canadian economy.

That is why I strongly urge this House to adopt the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague to delete this senseless restriction on used textbook importation.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is good to speak to this amendment today. It is an important one. I do not know if it slipped in without being noticed by the government but for some reason the government has seen fit to leave it in here.

It is concerned about one of those rising free trade issues of all times, the case where used textbooks could slip across the border in incredible numbers, flooding the market with cheap textbooks. It happens all the time that thousands of businesses go broke. Every day I get phone calls about this.

The reason it is a concern is that this specifically mentions university textbooks of a scientific, technological or scholarly nature. This provision is in there in case used textbooks become a problem. Again, I can hardly imagine that happening. Even if it were to become a so-called problem, what a delightful problem it would be.

I was in university for a while. The reasons I left will be left not discussed today. I was in university for some time. What does a person do when they get into university? The first thing they do is get courses assigned and textbooks.

People get their textbooks. They rush down because there is always a certain number of used textbooks available. They are available for first come, first serve. They are half price. If a person charges in there, they can get a scientific novel, a dissertation that is already highlighted and ready to go at half price.

When talking about a $1,600 bill for textbooks, what a plum to know there are plenty of textbooks, hopefully a plethora of textbooks, a cacophony, lots of textbooks all available at half price.

The member from Peace River asked what the number one priority is of a student. There is no doubt what the number one priority is. It is scholarly activity.

Jana is one of the many pages who serve us in the House of Commons. They do a wonderful job. I asked this young lady what her priorities are, what is catching her attention these days. They are getting near the end of term. They are here on a scholarly enterprise. They are here to learn and they also learn in university.

She said: ``I live to work at my scholarly activities''. I said: ``You look a little tired this morning. Is it possible that you have been working too hard?'' She said yes, she had been working too hard. She had been up to three o'clock in the morning studying some obscure topic that probably most of us would not even understand.

(1335 )

I am sure that with the use of a textbook and friends of both sexes they worked together to get to the studies at hand, using every asset at her disposal and pouring herself into her work. I was impressed. I am sure that at about one or two o'clock this morning she was thinking to herself ``where are those used textbooks?'' It was weighing heavily on her heart. I am sure she was thinking ``if they cut off the supply of used textbooks, what shall I do, I will have no opportunity to further my education''. She could be relegated to spending evenings in fruitless activities or who knows what.

I think of Jana when I think of this clause. I think what a sad thing it would be if this clause were to pass unamended. It would make it impossible for her to use any of these used books.

I jest somewhat of course. However, the intent of my remarks is sound. People going to university have a limited income, limited access to books. Almost all of them are striving to make ends meet and it is a tough job. These pages here are just like everyone else. They are trying to make ends meet as well.

Why would we want to restrict the access of used books to these people and others, that it could suddenly become a problem? I do not think people who are attending university need to be concerned about limited access. I say if used books can be found by the bus load, bring them in and sell them at half price, let the students benefit. After all, many scholarly books are only scholarly for that short university period. Let us recycle them, use them up and give the students a break.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the vein of my colleague on used books.

The government is proposing a penalty on used books. Used text books which are largely used by college students or universities could not be imported.

An hon. member: That is false.

Mr. Gilmour: A member across is saying it is false. We do not share that opinion. We feel this clause should be deleted. It is redundant.

Who does this penalize? It penalizes the students. I also address my comments to the nine pages in the House. These students spend time in the House learning about our parliamentary system and at the same time they attend university. These pages should not have to pay double for textbooks.

However, there is a deeper picture here. Why is the government penalizing students? Why is it not letting business take place? Business should operate on its own and should not be subsidized by government. If it cannot do that, it will go under.

On the one hand the government is saying it is going to charge students $5 million more for books. On the other hand there is an $87 million gift to Bombardier. What kind of picture does this paint of the Liberal idea of business? It is absolutely wrong.

This will be pushed forward. The Liberals will have loaded up the Senate. There will be no restriction in the Senate because the Liberals will push it through, another dysfunctional system.

(1340 )

I would like to go back to my university days. When I was in university books were a major cost. The fact that I was able to sell those books the next year either back to the university or to other students was part of my accounting for going into the next year. If I was not able to sell those books it would have been an additional cost, a cost I could not afford.

I again go back to where the Liberals are coming from. Why penalize students? Look at the pages here. Why should they be forced to pay another $5 million because the government wants to penalize them? It is absolutely wrong.

There is nothing wrong with recycled books. A book can be used many times. Why should it only be used once? It is because these people across the way are saying they will subsidize the publishing industry. That is basically wrong. This motion is redundant, wrong and should be deleted.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I think it might be of value to take a look at part of the proposed act here that we are saying is redundant and wrong.

Clause 45 states that notwithstanding anything in this act, it is lawful for a person to important copies made with the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where they were made of any used books. As far as that goes, that is fine, but the government is adding ``except where textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature for use within an educational institution in a course instruction''. How can the government say it is not relevant or not redundant?

It defies any logic to understand how even in a place like this where there is heckling from time to time, certainly not from our side, government members can possibly heckle and say that this clause does not have anything to do with textbooks. How can they say it does not have anything to do with the words I just read when those are the words they want to put into the act?

The result of this is going to be very detrimental not only to students but to businesses serving students who presently have a situation where there is a flow of textbooks back and forth. We have an open border situation that works very well. In fact, there are thousands of people who are either part time students or who are working on campus who are involved in this particular business. There is a business going back and forth. What the Liberals want to do, for whatever reason, is stop this business. The result is it will not only cost students many tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps millions of dollars additional to the cost of their being able to get themselves educated with the textbooks prescribed by their institutions, but it is also going to put in jeopardy literally thousands of jobs of either part time students or people working on the campus serving the students.

How in the world can government members turn around and say that it does not have anything to do with textbooks when the amendment states ``textbooks''?

To give the House an idea of where some of these concerns are coming from I will read from a news bulletin put out by the CAUT entitled ``Ambushed by the Heritage Committee'': ``Angst, combat, defeat and endurance, rather than terms describing warring nations or Olympic co-operation, have been the hallmarks of the proposed Canadian copyright legislation known as Bill C-32''. For those who are just tuning in to the copyright saga, angst refers to the cumulative facts of the CAUT, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Canadian school boards and the Canadian Teachers Federation. These people are deeply concerned not only about this part of the copyright law but other parts of it. Let us just stay on this part.

(1345)

What is the net result of the entire process? It is being held together with chewing gum and baling wire. As a matter of fact the scotch tape is starting to show. This entire process has been so flawed that the members cannot even read the bill where it says ``except textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature''.

These people who are after all educators or are involved in higher education in Canada state, as is pointed out in this article: ``The manner in which the amendments were pushed through the committee in just a few hours, many without prior consent from representatives of the jointly responsible Industry Canada, left onlookers aghast''.

We are involved in a process that the government does not seem to understand. I will admit to a degree of partisanship when I speak about the heritage minister and the way that she has handled this, but really this bill has nothing to do with partisanship. This bill has everything to do with attempting to create a balance between the creators and the users of material, whatever that material is, whatever those creations are.

To give the House an idea of what I am talking about, there was some discussion in committee about another section of the bill and the term ``commercially available''. This has a real impact as well on universities and teaching institutions.

For example, under educational institutions, section 29.4, because of the committee amendments to commercially available, would impact educational institutions if they were to photocopy a poem or any document created by Margaret Atwood for an

overhead projection in a high school class. That would be an infringement of copyright.

If an educational institution was to make a photographic slide of a painting by Alex Colville, a living Canadian artist, that could be projected on to the screen for purposes of teaching an art class, that would be an infringement of copyright.

If that institution was to photocopy a chapter from a very hard to find book and the class was asked to write a short literary criticism or an explanation of that document, that would be an infringement.

If, as part of an examination students were required to translate a poem into French, this invokes both reproduction and translation under section 29.4(2).

Libraries and archives or museums are being impacted if they make a cassette production for use by patrons of an original recording of a Canadian artist, now deceased, reading his own poetry in the early sixties, the condition of the original is such that it could not be handed directly to the patrons. This entire bill is patchwork and many of those patches, many of the holes do not even line up any more.

I return to my original thesis. I do not know the reasons why this clause was inserted into the bill. It is going to create a very serious situation for students. We will be increasing the costs to people getting an education as a result of the oversight or the accidental inclusion of this clause. There does not seem to be any particularly good reason for the inclusion of it.

The problem is that the entire bill from stem to gunnel is a patchwork that is falling apart and the scotch tape is not going to do the job.

(1350)

[Translation]

Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to intervene because what I am hearing is totally wrong, and people should not be allowed to say such utter nonsense.

First of all, this morning I took great pride in being in this House to consider Bill C-32 which concerns phase II of the copyright modernization process. For many years, the performing arts community has been waiting for this bill, and the government had to do something to update the existing legislation.

As I said this morning, in committee we worked long hours and heard more than 65 groups of witnesses from across Canada, people representing performers, radio, television and various educational institutions and museums. We did a very thorough job in committee because we felt that all the groups and associations that appeared before the committee had important things to say and some very specific recommendations to make.

We made a point of carefully listening to and considering what was said, bearing in mind the objective of Bill C-32 on copyright, which is to introduce new rights, including neighbouring rights, for performers, to add other mechanisms and forms of legal recourse for artists, and, as far as book distribution is concerned, to make some major changes to prevent parallel imports.

We also did a major job in committee when we considered this bill with all the amendments. The Bloc Quebecois alone proposed 75 amendments. The government also worked very hard on proposing amendments after hearing all these groups. However, I must say that while the committee worked very hard on this bill, the Reform Party members were conspicuous by their absence. They did not attend the discussions on the amendments, and were absent throughout the process of determining what was useful and what should be included in the bill. Today, they stand up and say that this bill was hastily cobbled together and that there were some last minute amendments.

I may recall that this bill goes beyond political considerations. This bill concerns performers and the very important cultural industry, and the official opposition will not tolerate members in this House criticizing the work of a committee and its approach, while they were conspicuous by their absence.

Today, people who worked with very specific objectives in mind are being accused of proceeding with undue haste and proposing amendments at the last minute. Speaking for the official opposition, I say no, that is not what happened.

I wanted today to be a memorable day in this House when, at last, the Copyright Act, which goes back to 1924, was revised the first time in 1988 and is aimed at serving the interests of creators and authors as well as the interests of those who use their works, will now follow the legislative process and move on to third reading.

I strongly urge the Reform Party to rise above its own partisan considerations and this attempt at obstruction, and work on this bill, instead of trying to make political mileage at the expense of creators, young people, students and our pages, no less. Talk about rhetoric!

(1355)

[English]

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I realize I am listening to the English translation, but I believe the member used an unparliamentary word which was translated as demagogues. I wish he would withdraw that word.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): My understanding is that it was said in a general context and not directly at a member in particular.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage held nearly 25 meetings, heard 68 witnesses, spent a total of85 hours on committee work, analyzed in excess of 190 briefs. It is unacceptable for Reform Party members to accuse committee members from the government and the official opposition alike of having done a poor job, of having botched this bill, especially when the hon. member saying so chose to absent himself from the committee and to practice empty-chair politics.

He has just voiced concerns about the amendment relating to photographers. I would remind him, since he had difficulty understanding that amendment, that I took my inspiration from the British copyright legislation. There has been much reference to copyrights in other countries. He ought to try to understand the amendment in the light of the British copyright legislation.

Today we must refuse any attempt to dispose of a major bill in its second review phase, which must be revised in five years.

This bill refers to collective societies, which represents authors and creators. We worked very hard on this major instrument, which is aimed at making it possible for these societies to speak with users and reach agreements with them. There is also a copyright board to govern the mechanisms.

I invite the Reform Party to rise above partisan politics and to give this bill a chance to survive, for the good of creators and users both.

This will be a great day if we manage to rise above political interests and to work strictly on behalf of authors and the cultural industry.

The Speaker: My colleagues, we will get back to this if necessary after Oral Question Period.

It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

_____________________________________________