Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the Group No. 4 motions. I mentioned earlier today the problems caused for book distributors by this bill and the problems it would cause for consumers of book products as a result.
At this point I would like to cover some objections to the bill that have been raised by the Canadian Association of Student Associations. With some information that they sent earlier today, they have calculated that the average spent on books by students during a university degree is around $4,800, which is a significant amount of money.
All of us who have been through university in the past know that it is always a struggle to pull together enough money to buy the textbooks for the year and $4,800 is not an insignificant amount of money. This figure is based on 10 courses per year with an average figure of about $75 per book. As those of us who have been to university know, many courses require more than one book but this calculation is based on one book per course.
The amount that students are able to save on the trade of used books, according to an average worked out by the Canadian Association of Student Associations, is about $1,600 or one-third of the total they spend. That is enough to pay for an entire semester of tuition and fees.
Students run into problems where professors choose to change the edition of a text from one year to another, which happens fairly often. I see some nods of assent from the other side from members opposite. I know they have experienced the harrowing experience of having professors change the edition of a text.
Students are unable to pass their texts to another student following behind. Therefore, there has been quite an export trade in books which enables the students to make between 40 and 50 per cent of the original cover price as they trade those books back across the border on export.
If the import trade is stopped, then obviously the export trade will end. That will be a direct result of this bill, which maybe the government side did not anticipate. Certainly those who are directly affected can see it quite clearly and they have not hesitated in pointing it out.
That was not something that came from the member for North Vancouver in isolation. It came directly from the Canadian Association of Student Associations. There are many unintended effects. As a result of this part of the bill we will end up with poorer service and higher prices for a Canadian used textbook system.
Ernst & Young did a study which concluded that book publishers were much slower at fulfilling orders than the used textbook distributors. Another unintended effect would be that the supply of Canadian used textbooks will be reduced by perhaps 50 per cent. Blocking reimports will prevent the very recycling of Canadian used textbooks that the publishers say they support.
This really is a badly thought out bill. Unintended effects make it obvious that its drafters should have consulted in a more meaningful manner with those who would be affected, in this case, university students.
The basic facts are that used textbooks are a small percentage of the overall textbook sales at Canadian universities and colleges. That is true. There is about $18 million or about 8 per cent based on the Ernst & Young study for the Canadian Publishers Council.
Canada has a net balance of trade in used textbooks. The Follett's Canadian operations, for example, actually buy and export more textbooks from Canada than are later re-imported for resale across Canada. The export trade is very important. If we start playing around, blocking the incentives for re-importation, then we are going to create a major problem for the export industry, which is very large.
(1510)
In 1995-96, for example, 42 per cent more textbooks were exported than re-imported. That is a major trade imbalance in Canada's favour. In 1995-96, 29 per cent of Canadian used textbooks which were exported and re-imported were actually Canadian material. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, if this bill is implemented, it will interfere with the re-importation of Canadian material. That will actually interfere with the trade which the bill is supposed to assist.
The conclusion reached is that Canada is not being overrun by foreign used textbooks. In fact it is recycling its own used textbooks through export and re-importation.
The figures of the Association of Students Association, which I mentioned earlier, suggest that the average student is spending about $4,800 on 10 courses per year. Universities and students will lose to the tune of at least $5.4 million each year as a result of the implementation of this bill.
Students will lose about $2 million in revenue from the sale of their used textbooks, which are currently being recycled through the U.S. If the sale of imported used textbooks turns into new book sales, students will end up paying an extra $3 million for the same textbooks they could have obtained through the recycling system.
These figures come directly from the Ernst & Young study. These are not figures which are being pulled out of the air. They come from legitimate studies done by very reliable sources.
Canadian universities and colleges, through their bookstores, are estimated to lose at least $375,000 in gross profits and will face higher inventory costs and greater risks.
These are very serious problems. As I pointed out earlier in the day when I was talking about my constituent who is a book wholesaler, representing a United States company, there will be major impacts on the free market with this system. At the moment the free market has adjusted itself to the point where there are really good values in books available directly through importation from the United States. When these additional layers of protectionism are introduced, which will supposedly protect Canadian culture, in fact it will interfere with the availability of books and cause problems with pricing at the consumer level, as indicated in the concerns raised by the students.
This is a very ill-informed set of clauses. Frankly, they need attention. As has been indicated in a number of speeches made by my colleagues, the bill should be withdrawn. The best solution right now would be to withdraw the bill and take another look at it. We should start again from scratch and investigate whether we need to be using these sorts of tactics to try to protect Canadian culture when in fact we will be interfering with the consumer marketplace.
I am pleased I had the opportunity to bring the concerns of the students' association to the attention of the House. I join with my colleagues in opposing the bill.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to cover a few points which have been raised on used textbooks. Hon. members are shortchanging the ability of Canadians to take care of business.
I refer to my experience a few years back when I was at the University of Ottawa. We had the problem of not being able to access used books. We set up our own used bookstore. Nothing in this bill prevents Canadians, be they students, be they entrepreneurs, be they book publishers, from doing that. Nothing prevents people from putting in place organizations and mechanisms to recycle books.
To make the argument that somehow, some way, this bill would banish the recycling of textbooks is erroneous. I believe it is appropriate to highlight that point.
(1515)
Be they campus driven books, used book stores, Canadian publishers and so forth, nothing in this legislation will prevent that from happening. The intent of the legislation is to prohibit those who would circumvent the legislation from doing that by selling
into Canada books which have not initially been sold according to exclusive distributorship agreements. That is what is intended and nothing else.
I would hope that the members speaking to this point would understand that and not create a false sense of alarm.
That is essentially what I wanted to point out on this particular amendment.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again address Bill C-32 and in particular the issue that has been discussed over the last several speeches.
I am concerned that not necessarily through malice but through neglect the government is placing an inordinate burden on young people today in many different respects. It is not limited to what we are discussing today. There seems to be a theme developing here.
We have 17 per cent youth unemployment in the country today. We have a situation where the government has just announced that it is going to drive CPP premiums through the roof. It will be young people who bear the great burden of that. They will be paying more and more to get less and less. We have a situation where the government reneged on its promise on the GST on reading materials.
I am going to mention it one more time for people who have not heard me raise this in the past. The government did promise before the last election to get rid of the GST on reading materials. It promised in policy conventions to do that. It has not happened, so students have to pay the GST on textbooks that they purchase.
We have tuitions that have gone through the roof as a result of cuts to transfers to the provinces. The government has cut $7 billion plus in transfers to the provinces. The result has been that tuitions have been raised for young people.
I would point out that my party would reverse that trend by putting $4 billion back in.
Now we have a situation where the government has snuck a clause into Bill C-42. In fact, it is a clause that a lot of its own members were not even aware of and there is a good reason for that. A lot of the changes that happened occurred this morning, so there was not adequate time for reflection on what was done. Nevertheless, it is in there. Now we have to contend with it. It is onerous. It is quite painful for students.
As the member for Vancouver North has pointed out, students, young people, in addition to all the other burdens they have to face because of what the government has done or has failed to do, are now going to be in a situation where they cannot resell their textbooks. They cannot get the money back that they would like to get and will be paying $3 million in extra costs because they will not be able to purchase used textbooks.
A $5 million hit for university and college students is unacceptable. The government has already nailed them on the GST. It has nailed them with tuition costs. It has nailed them with higher premiums on CPP. They have a 17 per cent youth unemployment rate. What does the government do? It turns around and gives it to them again. It is giving them one more shot.
Let me say as forcefully as I can that the government should rethink this provision of Bill C-32. It is completely wrong for students today.
A lot of my colleagues have talked about pages in this place. They work very hard both here and in university. Now they are going to be facing this additional burden. I would say that young people are our future. It is said by all political parties that we should cut them some slack, that we should find ways to make it easier for them, not hit them harder.
I want to urge hon. members across the way, including the parliamentary secretary and all other people who have shown an interest in this bill, that the government should truly rethink this section of the bill. It has demonstrated in a way that really deserves our attention that perhaps in particular case it has not thought out the implications for all Canadians.
That is unfortunate. This bill has been coming to the House for nine years. For nine years we have been dealing with this legislation. One would think that they would not have to force through pieces of legislation like this at the last moment with obviously little or no forethought. As a result young people are going to face very high prices.
(1520)
I will conclude simply by saying that there have been a number of changes to the legislation which have penalized people who do not deserve to be penalized. Young people, in particular, seem to be picked on by the government.
As I pointed out previously, we do have an extremely high unemployment rate for young people, 17 per cent as the national average. It is much higher in other places. We have seen the big CPP premium increases that will impact young Canadians and hurt them the most. The government reneged on its promise of removing the GST from reading materials, textbooks et cetera. They already pay a much higher price than they would have if the government had kept its promise.
We have seen the cuts in the transfers that the government has enacted, driving up tuitions across the country. Now this amend-
ment which is part of Bill C-32 is going to cost students $5.4 million more a year for books.
I would urge all fair minded members of the House to vote against this amendment or, ultimately if it is not removed, to vote against Bill C-32.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 44, the Reform amendment to the bill deleting the section which would prevent textbooks of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature from use within an education institution in a course of instruction to be imported in the used book category.
I did hear the intervention by the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I do not think it clarified anything. It certainly did not clarify anything to me. I find it to be a very cute clause that has the effect of preventing reimportation of Canadian textbooks.
When there is a government that whispers the concerns of the three rs, reduce, reuse, recycle, this certainly flies in the face of that. I also listened to the intervention from the Bloc member, who seemed quite concerned that we would not support the bill as it is. The Bloc has also put forth amendments. This is part of the democratic process, so I think it is quite in order for us to be talking about these clauses.
I listened closely to what the member for Prince George-Peace River had to say about used books. His intervention was very timely. I do know something about textbook publishing. My family has an educational background. My father has authored portions of textbooks. My brother is an academic and writes for internationally published journals. I know that the textbook industry is a very special industry. It is a very profitable industry and we all know that the setting of curriculum determines very often which textbooks are going to be used.
(1525 )
There is a lot of attention paid by the publishers in trying to bring curriculum setters on board and influence decisions as to which textbooks become the preferred textbooks of the day and so on.
I do not think we need to add another layer of exemption or special circumstance through this clause dealing with importation exemptions to this piece of business. I left university 25 years ago but during my time in that institution I certainly did use used textbooks. There was a thriving trade in used textbooks. Students, of all people, are very aware of the value from the day they purchase their books to the day they take them back and try to get reimbursement. They try very hard to keep the value up. A used book in good condition is obviously worth more than a used book in poor condition.
I had many advantages when I went to university from the standpoint that I was able to work my way through. I left university without indebtedness. That is very difficult to do these days. It is much more difficult for a student to obtain employment that will pay enough for them to pay all of their expenses for the year as well as for their education.
Therefore I recognize that any advantage we can bring to the student body is important, particularly on this financial end. If we restrict the supply of used textbooks in any way, what that will do is drive up the price of the remaining used textbooks. That will hurt the pocketbooks of our students.
I do not see anything redeeming about this clause. Our amendment would delete that exemption and I believe that is the way to go. The clause, as it currently reads, is counterproductive. The textbook publishing industry is already profitable.
The environmental concerns, reducing, reusing, recycling, are met by any encouragement we can have to keep those textbooks reusable and in free flow position.
Those are the points I wanted to make on that clause. I will be quite happy to speak to some further clauses when we arrive there.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1530)
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: We will now move to Group No. 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 30 the following:
``29.21 Section 29.5, subsections 29.6(1), 29.7(1) and 29.7(3), section 30, subsections 30.2(1), (2) and (5) and section 30.5 do not apply in relation to works, performers' performances, sound recordings or communication signals that form part of the repertoire of a collective society.''
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-32, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 81 the following:
``77.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 77, where the act for which a licence is being sought is administered by a collective society referred to in section 70.1,
(a) the application shall be made to the collective society;
(b) the collective society shall determine whether the conditions set out in subsection 77(1) have been met;
(c) the collective society shall have the power to issue a licence; and
(d) the terms of the licence issued by the collective society shall not be more onerous than those set out in the society's licensing scheme.
(2) Where the applicant and the collective society are unable to agree on the royalties to be paid for the right to do the act or on their related terms and conditions, either of them may apply to the Board to fix the royalties and their related terms and conditions pursuant to subsection 70.2(1).
(3) Subsections 77(2), (3) and (4) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to applications made pursuant to subsection (1).''
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-32, in Clause 53.1, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 93 with the following:
``53.1 Notwithstanding subsection 67.1(2), section 70.13 and subsections 71(3) and 83(4) of the Copyright Act, as enacted by sections 45, 46 and 50 of this Act, the''(1535)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk at this stage about the amendments in Group No. 5 for a very specific reason, which is that the collective societies are the issue, the focus of recognition in this bill.
It was in 1988 that we recognized and expanded the collective societies. SOCAN is one that is particularly well known.
When the bill was tabled, we immediately drew the government's attention to the exceptions in the bill, because it concerns the recognition of moral and economic copyright. The new bill-phase II of the modernization effort-provided for a great many additional exceptions, including educational institutions, museums, libraries and archives, thereby seriously undermining the rights of authors and creators.
We drew the government's attention to and criticized this aspect of the bill, which was very detrimental to creators in releasing some major sectors from the obligation to negotiate with authors and to recognize copyright, because everyone could now retrench and hide behind the law. What we said is that it promotes irresponsibility. They took away people's responsibility by inviting them to negotiate with authors or with the collective societies representing copyright holders.
This morning, I said these exceptions were like a huge black cloud hanging over the bill. At this point I would like to mention what two groups, one group and one person in particular, who appeared before the committee had to say about what the exceptions meant for them. Quebec artists represented by their collective society came to tell us that it was truly a unacceptable step backward. Margaret Atwood, very well known in English Canada, described the exceptions as outright theft of copyright.
Having heard the observations of collective societies and of artists, we put great effort into trying to present, first of all for us, for the Bloc Quebecois, an amendment to the effect that the exceptions not apply where there is a collective society.
The government has really made progress in trying to reduce the number of exceptions, to keep them to a minimum, but their efforts notwithstanding, we are returning to the charge in the House today and calling on the government to listen to reason and to agree to full recognition of collective societies, to agree that where such societies have been set up, exceptions should not apply.
With respect to exceptions, we think it important to point out, first, that they are the most negative aspect of the bill, although we have managed to reduce their impact, and second that allowing exceptions is expropriation of copyright. And this needs to be said.
I call on the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments and recognize the usefulness of collective societies, which for a number of years now have truly done a good job. The Copyright Board recognizes that collective societies are doing a good job, that this approach, which is still in its early days, should be extended and, above all, should recognize the right of authors, creators and artists to negotiate their own works. Their own moral and economic rights must be recognized throughout the bill. I urge the government to support the Bloc Quebecois amendments.
(1540 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I probably never recognized before the differences in the thought processes between the Bloc Quebecois and other members of the House.
The Bloc Quebecois, with the greatest respect, seems to see collectives, no matter which area of society we are talking about, as being the answer. It makes me think of some of the stories we see in the English news media of the language police in Quebec. The concept of language police outside the province of Quebec is so far from the minds of people outside Quebec that we cannot even get our minds around it. Perhaps it is an indicator of a different background, a different approach to living together that the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are actually exhibiting.
This is an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois to create more teeth for collectives. It does not take into account the reality that there is presently a difference in terms of collectives among artists, composers and authors in Quebec, how they have banded together, versus artists, composers and authors in other provinces.
I recognize the member's motivation. He has clearly stated it. He sees collectives as being the cornerstone of enforcement for the bill.
There are a lot of things that businesses are finding very onerous in terms of continued government infringement through regulations and inspectors among other things. The other day a person from an asphalt and concrete plant was telling me he had 35 different inspections and fees. If we consider the area we are discussing, which is more in the area of people who are using the creations of various people, we see inspectors coming in, more and more paperwork, and more and more big brotherism.
The purpose of the copyright bill is to create a situation where the authors and composers of work are properly compensated for their intellectual and creative property. There is a place for organizations such as SOCAN. There are successful collectives that have worked their way into a good working relationship with the users of the works of the people they represent.
However, this is a further encroachment into business and the people who want to enjoy these works. It is another regulation and another level of bureaucracy, albeit not directly a government level of bureaucracy. It is something I have an unbelievable amount of difficulty with.
I happen to disagree most profoundly with the presentation made by Margaret Atwood at our committee hearings. I would like to parenthesize for a second.
Speaking of exceptions, I took some exception to the notion put forward by the Bloc heritage critic that the heritage critic for the Reform Party, namely myself, had not participated in the hearings and in the committee process. The reason I took exception was that I have a totally different recollection of the process. I recall that he and I, while we were coming at these things from different points of view very frequently, nonetheless are part of a functioning committee where it was the Bloc, it was Reform or it was the Liberal members and we were working together and indeed we did spend many countless hours together listening to input from people.
(1545)
I think it is unfortunate that because I visualized the rapid fire conclusion of the committee process that was forced by the minister of heritage, and I would not dignify that process because it was a process out of control, I find it really unfortunate that the Bloc member would suggest that Reform had not been part of the process in any event.
The point I am trying to drive at with respect to this proposed amendment to Bill C-32 in the simplest possible terms is this. We must have the ability to create within copyright law a proper balance, truly a balance, a balance between people who are contributing to our society by their creative genius and the people who enjoy those works or the people who indeed are using those works such as people who are using them for commercial purposes. This is all part of what the heritage committee even now is talking about doing in terms of the definition of Canadian culture.
To my mind the simplest definition of Canadian culture is what Canadians do, just those three words. What Canadians do to my mind is the simplest, most profound definition of what Canadian culture is. Canadians have access to architecture, to writings, to music, to all sorts of things that are created by their fellow Canadians and they form part of Canadian culture and those creations, whatever they may be, are part of the intrinsic value of who we are as Canadians and what our nation truly represents.
By so doing the interesting problem that is created is that when those creations, whatever they may be, get out into the public domain, they become a legitimate part of the public domain. We have to have a balance between the people we will call the consumers of those creations versus the artists who create those works, whatever they may be.
By the insertion of a heavy handed and dare I say a police like attitude toward policing the Copyright Act, in particular now that the Copyright Act has gone to such a gross imbalance in favour of the artists, authors and composers, by creating even more teeth in a very heavy handed collective way, I fear that we are going to end up killing the goose that is creating the golden egg. Truly it is the creativity and the greatness of Canadian artists that we are here to
try to balance, what they are creating against those who want to use that work that is in the public domain.
Therefore I say in conclusion that there is no possible way that I would see myself recommending to the Reform Party that we support these clauses proposed by the member from the Bloc.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Group No. 5 of the amendments. There are three amendments here, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57.
Bill C-32 introduces a number of exceptions to facilitate access and reduce costs for the benefit of public institutions and persons suffering from perceptual disabilities.
(1550 )
To ensure access for certain types of users of copyright materials, the Copyright Act recognizes certain exceptions for reasons of public interest. The exceptions contained in Bill C-32 respond to the real concerns from certain types of users and, in some cases, the bill stipulates that certain exceptions do not apply where there exists a collective which can negotiate a blanket licence for the use of those works.
The Bloc Quebecois has tabled amendments which would extend this principle to all exceptions. This, in the government's view, would nullify the very exceptions the government has been promising to reintroduce over the past nine years. The government believes that the collective management of rights is a cost effective and efficient means of enhancing access to works.
The government will therefore continue to encourage the collective management of rights but in certain circumstances, such as those that are described in the bill, the government believes that exceptions are required.
With this group of amendments, I think we have to be very straightforward with regard to the tactics that are being used in this House today to debate certain groups. I am going to give an example. Here we have Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of these motions and want them passed. The Reform critic for Canadian heritage has stood up and said they are not ready to support that. The parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage is standing in his place now saying that we are not ready to support it either.
There are some very serious debates that have to be done on Bill C-32, debates that members want to hear, the ephemeral transfer format. Unfortunately they only occur in Group No. 7. It is a very long list of amendments. I am anxious to hear what members have to say about those amendments because I think they go a long way in satisfying the Reform Party and our critics with regard to when the bill was first tabled in the House. That was the biggest concern we heard from the Reform Party with regard to ephemeral transfer format.
We heard other concerns from the Bloc with regard to the creator's side, so we tried to strike a balance. At this point I see no need for Reform members to reiterate over and over again that they are against these three and for government members to reiterate over and over that they are against them. I think we should let Bloc Quebecois members explain again why they are in agreement and convince us that they want to go with this. I would certainly be ready to put the question now.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad some members are not paying attention. When you recognize somebody on debate why are they asking for the question?
The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that we are debating Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 7, 54 and 57. He has also insisted that anybody who does stand up and debate should not go off on a tangent and should not elaborate on anything else. They should stick to the issue.
Now all of a sudden they are applying the narrowest sense of the terms and rules of this House which, up until now, certainly a lot of members and the Speakers who have monitored the debate have given a lot of discretionary variance to for members to bring up any particular issue on these amendments that we are debating.
What concerns me is that we have a process and a system in the House of Commons whereby we have three stages to a bill and after second reading it goes to committee. It can go to committee after first reading for debate and discussion. Going through the fine print is the responsibility of standing committees. It is their responsibility to try to improve and point out flaws in bills and to make sure that the interpretation of all members and all parties is the same so that when the bill becomes law Canadian citizens can understand it.
(1555)
When people look at an issue, when they want to know what the law is, what they can or cannot do, they can pick up a bill, for example Bill C-32, go to this page, which is being amended with these three motions, read it and understand it.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe I should be. I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that if we took this bill and some of these amendments with the language being used to lawyers out there who are going to be hired to interpret the copyright act, to interpret who has to pay and who does not have to pay, to interpret collective agencies, who qualifies and who does not, what they can charge for and what they cannot charge for, there will be a difference of opinion out there. They will not understand the wording.
It is amazing to me that we try to introduce bills that are very complicated. Instead of using fewer words, being clear and concise, they carry a lot of baggage.
I have given this preamble for a purpose. I had a fight about seven or eight years ago with the people of SOCAN. There was another one. It was called PROCAN. We had two collectives coming after my butt for running a nightclub in Calgary, playing music and having live entertainment. These people professed that they had the right to charge me money because I was playing music.
I said that makes sense. I guess it is performing arts and I have to pay it. I looked into it. The reason I bring up this story up is for a better understanding of why I would be voting against the Bloc member's amendments on this bill. The more collective agencies there are, the more people who claim they have the power to protect the rights of the originators of copyright information or copyright material, the more confusion there is.
When I had my nightclub, they came to me and said ``here are the fees''. They had a list of the artists and entertainers. Because I was playing this type of music, because my establishment had a certain number of seats and a certain amount of square footage, the fee was x.
I wondered what right they had to do that. I questioned their right to do that and what law forced me to do that. After all, if I had a live performer in my club, I paid them perhaps $5,000 a night. I paid good salaries because we only brought in the best entertainers.
Mr. Ian Tyson was a favourite of mine. We had him in our club quite often. I paid this fee to the artist. Then I questioned why, on top of that, I had to pay a performing arts fee to SOCAN and PROCAN.
When I buy an album or a tape, we are all paying the fee for the artist. The artist makes money from live performances, records, tapes and videos that are put together. Members may argue that they might not get enough of a percentage from it but they have agents who negotiate that.
Certainly someone like Garth Brooks makes a heck of a lot more now than he did when he first started. Yes, it was an opportunity for me at one time in my club to book him for $5,000 a week. Now he is getting $150,000 an hour or more, who knows what he is paid now.
These collective agencies then come forward and say ``because you are playing this kind of music, on top of what these people make, we have to collect more money from you because you are repeating it''. Radio stations play their music. They have to pay.
Then along comes another association called PROCAN, another collective agency. The Bloc is recommending we create more. It says to me ``you have to pay because you are playing this kind of music, these people originated from the States, it is a bit of a crossover''.
I said ``I am not paying. I am already obligated. Some other association said I had to pay it. Before I pay anybody, I want to see the lists of the artists you represent''. I made both of them bring me the list. I had a file so thick of all the different artists and all the different venues they represented. When I cross referenced it with the other list, lo and behold some names of artists were on the two separate lists. I asked how they could be charging me double. Either one had them or the other had them. I raised quite a fuss and I refused to pay both of them until they got it clear who represented which artists.
(1600)
That lasted for a year and a half. I was able to get my back up and directly fight the system. Through that I may have been one of the people in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Vancouver who forced these people to get their act together and create just the one.
My point to the Bloc member is that the fewer collective agencies there are the better, and the clearer it is who you have to pay for the rights to use somebody's music or work. I agree with the principle that a fee should be paid for that since after all artists are at the low end of the totem pole and they get the least. I understand that principle and I would certainly support making sure they get some money.
Let us not go overboard. In the process of trying to protect these artists, performers and professional entertainers there are all these fat middle people called agents, producers and everybody else who take the cream off the top. The tougher you make it for the person who tries to hire these people to perform on a stage in theatre, the more expensive they are.
One of the reasons the philharmonics across the country are in trouble-they raise some money but it is hard to raise money and hard to pay them-is because the performers are asking too much. You can bankrupt the system. If we go overboard with this copyright bill by having too many collective agencies, which will confuse the general public that uses the copyright material, we will be in trouble.
The point in my intervention on these motions is to argue why it is not wise to have a number of collective agencies. They become like tax collectors. Lord knows we have enough tax collectors in this country and we pay enough taxes already. The point is that yes, we are interested in protecting the creators of original material and yes, we are interested in protecting intellectual property. Those people should be rewarded for their efforts, especially if they have talent and if they create a reusable product.
I do not know all aspects of this bill. I was not on the standing committee when it was debated clause by clause, but I hope that somewhere along the line the members of the committee and the parliamentary secretary recognize that there are a lot of people involved here and everybody has his or her hand out. I hope we are able to tackle the layer of fat of the different people who want a bunch of money before the people who should get it get their fair
share. By going too far in protecting artists are we satisfied and clear in our mind? Do members of all parties have an understanding before this bill gets passed that we are not just padding the pockets of the producers, the agents and all these other people rather than the artists?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we go through these groupings today it is interesting to try to work back and forth between the groupings from the Order Paper that were dumped on us this morning, the bill we have in front of us and the comments.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, it is unfortunate that this part of the debate does not lend itself to questions and answers. Maybe a guy could support some of this stuff more willingly if he could ask a couple of questions about it at this stage. It is a very lengthy amendment and it is difficult to try to figure out.
(1605 )
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to ask for questions and answers to be part of this debate so that we could ask the hon. member from the Bloc whether that was-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I turn the floor over to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We were quite co-operative this morning on the last request by the Reform Party for unanimous consent. But as soon as they got unanimous consent then they started playing tricks with the rules. They wanted to adjourn the debate. I do not know how sincere they really are about this. I would have to say no under the circumstances.
The Deputy Speaker: That would appear to resolve the issue.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his remarks on this motion I thought were proper. He mentioned the idea of public interest exceptions and to have certainty whenever possible in these clauses and take most of the arbitrariness out of it. In government bills generally it is a very wise move.
For example, in this amendment it states:
Notwithstanding section 77, where the act for which a licence is being sought is administered by a collective society referred to in section 70.1.
(a) the application shall be made to the collective society;
(b) the collective society shall determine whether the conditions set out in subsection 77(1) have been met;Is that the proper way to do it? Is the collective society that is making the application the one determining whether the terms and conditions have been met? That is not normally done. It collectively can make its application but it is not the one that determine whether everything has been met. It would be an outside body or an outside arbitrator. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that because it seems to me it is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense. I am not sure that is a wise way to term it. However, again we cannot debate that. I just raise it as a concern.
I also want to point out that although the parliamentary secretary is interested in certainty in the bill, there is a trend in a lot of government bills to move away from certainty and toward decisions made outside parliamentary consent, this clause notwithstanding.
In bills that state ``that regulations may be referred to a standing committee for examination''-not will, but may. Parliament may examine this at a certain interval, not that it will or it shall.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary. These should be exceptions and not the rule. Increasingly in the legislation before us we find that power is taken away from Parliament and given to the front benches. When we talk about changes, whether it is regulatory changes on gun control, or at the discretion of the minister under the new wheat board bill, that directors of the wheat board shall not be liable to prosecution for Criminal Code violations at the discretion of the crown. That is too much power to leave with the government. It should be left with Parliament or at the very least with a committee, some public forum where at least questions could be asked.
However, in this group of amendments, 7, 54 and 57, because of the inability to cross-examine, I would have to agree with the member for Kootenay East. It is impossible to agree with these given that I am not convinced the intent is obvious. As the parliamentary secretary has mentioned, it introduces the uncertainty that a bill should not have and that we should move away from that whenever possible.
Lo and behold, I am going to agree with the Liberal government on this point. We will be opposing this amendment. I will oppose the bill too. I am sorry I cannot cross-examine the Bloc member. Perhaps he has answers to some of my questions.
(1610)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 36 with the following:
``(c) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under subsection (1) or (5) and the manner and form in which the information is to be kept; and''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 23 on page 37 with the following:
``(5) Where an archive requires the consent of the copyright owner to copy an unpublished work deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this section but is unable to locate the owner, the archive may copy the work in accordance with subsection (3).
(6) The archive must make a record of any copy made under subsection (5), and keep it available for public inspection, as prescribed.
(7) It is not an infringement of copyright for an archive to make a copy, in accordance with subsection (3), of any''Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 14 on page 37.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-32, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 22 on page 37 with the following:
``(6) The archive may make a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited in the archive before the coming into force of this section unless the author of the work advises the archive in writing that the work is not to be copied except where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case the archive may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.''(1615)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has proposed a very interesting change in MotionNo. 13. It certainly is a massive improvement over what was contained in the proposed legislation and the legislation coming out of committee.
Of all the people who contacted my office-and perhaps this is true of the Liberal and Bloc offices-the people who were the most concerned about the copyright legislation, believe it or not, were not the people who were concerned about the collectives and not
the people who were concerned about the money aspects of neighbouring rights and so on. The greatest outcry of concern seemed to come from the people who were concerned about access to geneology.
We do not want to beat the issue to death. The reality is that only this morning we received a number of these motions, this one included. We have not had an opportunity to seriously digest what the government is attempting to achieve.
I give the government at least a passing grade in that it has made a very significant improvement to the legislation as proposed. For the reason that we created our own proposed amendment, Motion No. 15, we feel very comfortable with it. We think it would achieve what the people concerned about these issues, the archivists and the genealogists, want to achieve.
As we said before, though, in the arduous process we have been through we have heard from a lot of people and there has been a lot of discussion. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary would agree with me, but this is a relatively substantive amendment. It is a major clarification of what was contained in the proposed legislation. It begs the question, if that is the case, as to why we did not have something of this nature prior to this point.
Clearly we have a badly flawed process and a badly flawed bill, particularly in light of the fact there was so much concern on the part of genealogists and people concerned about the issue who were coming into the offices of all members involved in Bill C-32.
The whole issue of following geneology, following family trees and recording history, is something that has come into focus but not into vogue. I do not want to say vogue because that sounds stylish. It certainly has come into focus for a lot of people around the world.
Last summer when I was in England I had the good fortune of tracing my father's heritage. I tried to get my hands on documents over there. I looked through the various databanks. It was personally rewarding. To that extent I understand people who are keen on the idea of geneology.
To be very precise, our amendment to the proposed legislation states:
The archive may make a copy of an unpublished work that was deposited in the archive before coming into force of this section unless the author of the work advises the archive in writing that the work is not to be copied-I am not a lawyer but as the legislation was explained it was to create a situation where there would be a bank of information that would simply not be available to people for 50 or 60 years.
We want to make sure there is not an undue infringement of copyright of people's writings. On the other side of the coin there must be structured access to any legitimate request for copies for information purposes of the archive and for purposes of geneology.
It continues:
-except where the archive receives written notification from the author that the author has given permission to the person for whom the copy is to be made to obtain the copy, in which case the archive may not make a copy of the work unless it receives such a notification.(1620 )
People were explaining to me that there would be a problem because many people do this as a hobby. As a result it is not revenue producing. As a matter of fact it is probably revenue spender.
The ability to be able to transmit information, either by E-mail or by fax, and the ability to make a photocopy of that information, place it into a fax machine or scan it into a computer, is a very important issue. I am not sure it will be handled with the same liberalism in Motion No. 13.
It will be interesting over the next period of time to see the input we will receive from the people who are concerned about these issues, assuming that the government will force through Motion No. 13 and not vote in favour of our Motion No. 15.
This speaks to the whole issue of the availability of information to concerned people. It speaks to the whole issue that the Reform Party has been attempting to drive home all day, that we must have a balance between the people who have a legitimate use for control of their creation and the people who want to have access to that information.
It would have been most helpful if the government had not at the 11th hour-as a matter of fact it was past midnight-come forward with the amendment. That really is an unfortunate part of the process. If the government motion had been out in the public domain and if we could have received responses from people who are concerned about the issues of geneology and the retrieval of archival information, we would have been able to vote with more intelligence on the government motion. We would have been able to decide whether it would do the job.
As a consequence, it would be my recommendation to my colleagues in the Reform Party that we vote in favour of Motion No. 15. We have crafted that motion with the help of legal services. We believe it will achieve the objective we want to achieve.
Unless there is some time between the debate, now that this is out in the public domain, and the opportunity for concerned people to have their say on the issue, we will be inclined to vote against the government amendment. We will be very happy to change our position if the people concerned about these things have an opportunity to give us their input.
We have said this again and again all day and probably on the next group of motions I will be saying it again. This is a process which is designed to protect the creators of work, whoever those creators are and whatever their work may be. It will give them protection. At the same time it will give people the freedom to use
it so they will be encouraged to generate more work. That is really what the bill is about.
Because of that, although this is a partisan House and many parts of this debate are partisan, the bill should be non-partisan. It should reflect the values of all Canadians in a very technical way. It is not an emotional issue like many of the hot button issues we get into in the House. We are trying to create a balance.
I hope the government will do its part. We will do our part to distribute the government's wording. We will elicit input from people concerned about these issues so we can vote intelligently when the time comes to vote on these motions.
(1625 )
The Deputy Speaker: Just before I recognize the hon. member on his point of order, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadowlake-Railways.
A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion-If you will review the video and the audio tapes you will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour clearly called out point of order and the Speaker clearly recognized him on a point of order. While on that point of order the minister moved a time allocation motion on Bill C-66.
For a more recent ruling on this matter, I refer to a Speaker's ruling of November 20, 1996 at page 6503 of Hansard. The Speaker then ruled that there is only one kind of motion which can be moved on a point of order. He said:
In fact, there is only one motion that can be made on a point of order and that is the motion that was made by the member for St. Albert.The motion that the member for St. Albert moved was:
That the member for Medicine Hat be now heard.That being the only motion that can be moved on a point of order, the minister's motion for time allocation cannot be accepted because he violated the rules of the House. These rules must be followed to the letter because they are the only protection that the minority in the House has against the tyranny of the majority.
The minister was clearly out of order in moving his motion to cut off debate on Bill C-66 and I ask that you rule on this point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. colleague was kind enough to give me notice of this point of order. I have been attempting to get the blues with respect to the points he just made.
I am told by persons who were here this morning that the member is absolutely right that the words point of order were used by the Minister of Labour when he stood and moved closure. The member's point is one I raised earlier as a member.
I am also led to believe, unless somebody can correct me, that the matter has been voted upon. Any member is obliged to raise that point at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the precise point about using the words point of order was not raised at the time, the matter has now been disposed of by a vote in the House.
It is not as we say in Latin void ab initio, which means that it goes back like in a bigamist marriage and the matter becomes defective because you were married at the time of the second marriage. The matter was cleansed, if I can used that word, by the fact that nobody objected at the time the vote was held and the matter proceeded.
I should hear from any other member wishing to speak on that point.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not within the minute but within minutes the member for Lethbridge came in and addressed the Chair. He tried to correct that at the earliest possible moment. It was not in the crush of the yeas, the nays, the deferred vote and so on. It was, however, done at the earliest possible minute.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it takes a minute or two to get Beauchesne's out and crack open the section. Maybe some do but I certainly do not have it memorized. It takes at least a minute or two in order to get that book open and find the reference. It was brought to the attention of the Chair but it was not really dealt with or addressed as much as you have addressed it here.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would reconsider in light of the fact that after it was raised the Speaker ruled on the acceptability of when the motion was moved. Perhaps the point was not clear at the time because our complaint was not when the motion was moved but how the motion was moved. In other words, it was during Government Orders but it was on a point of order, not to rise in his place. There is a significant difference.
The timing was fine. I do not have a problem with the timing. The problem was how the minister rose to his feet and how he brought that motion forward. He brought it forward in a clearly inappropriate manner.
(1630 )
The Chair initially ruled on the when, not the how. It is the how that was the problem. The inappropriateness was really what the member for Lethbridge was trying to get out of the Chair at the time. We did bring that up at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I was in the Chamber at the time of the motion this morning. The Speaker was seized with it this morning. She consulted with the clerk and she made a ruling. There was another point of order this afternoon. You have since made a ruling. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I would say to you that the matter is closed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The reason for the delay on the part of the Reform Party is that we also had to review the tape.
The Deputy Speaker: I listened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Although I was not here, I believe the question that was raised concerned at which time the motion was being moved, whether it was under Government Orders or under motions. That matter was ruled on by the Speaker.
The question of the fact that the minister had apparently used the words point of order was not dealt with at that time, and accordingly it is too late now to raise those words as words that somehow obviated what had gone on at the time.
Therefore I have to move on. I realize the House is not sitting tomorrow so I do not think I should reserve on that matter.