HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 17, 2002

¹

1530

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

The Chair

The Chair

¹

1535

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

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

¹

1540

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

¹

1555

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 075

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 17, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to examine Bill C-48 clause by clause. I would like to draw the attention of all members to a few points that are very important in the examination of the bill.

[Translation]

    Ms. Gagnon and committee members, in the French version of amendment CA-1 that you have before you, a word was omitted because of a typographical error. It should read “à celle d'un système de retransmission par fil.” Please add the word “système” between the words “d'un” and “de” in the second last line, if you will.

    Do you have it?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Yes. I noted that long ago.

[English]

    The Chair: I told you, on the advice given to me the other day, because of the way the definition was structured, we would have to start with motion G-1, although CA-1 was received prior to G-1, and if G-1 were adopted, CA-1 and CA-2 couldn't be moved. I have received advice from our legal advisors today. After consultation, they have obtained the following directives. Because the bill is not an original bill, it doesn't stand by itself, it's an amendment to the existing Copyright Act, the definition is an open one. Therefore, CA-1 can be proceeded with and can be treated in its own order. In other words, we can start discussion on CA-1 without having to resort first to G-1. If CA-1 is adopted--I think members should be quite clear about this--G-1 cannot be put. If CA-1 is defeated, CA-2 falls away. Is that quite clear to members?

    There are no amendments to clause 1. Will clause 1 carry?

    (Clause 1 agreed to)

    The Chair: We will now examine clause 2. I will now consider amendment CA-1 proposed by the Canadian Alliance. Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I think we've had sufficient discussion about this issue. I think it stands on its own.

    The Chair: Are there any comments on amendment CA-1? Will amendment CA-1 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Amendment CA-1 carries, so we will not proceed with G-1 and move on to CA-2. Mr. Abbott, do you want to make any remarks about CA-2 or just let it stand?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Just let it stand, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Are there any comments in regard to CA-2? All in favour of amendment CA-2?

    (Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We now move on to amendment CA-3. Any comments, Mr. Abbott?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: No comments, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Any comments? All in favour of amendment CA-3?

    (Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We now go on to amendment CA-4, which you have before you.

¹  (1535)  

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I believe it makes more sense to look at CA-5 before CA-4, because if CA-5 passes, then it's necessary to pass CA-4.

    The Chair: I think that's correct. Thank you, Mrs. Bulte. So we will, if members are agreed, proceed with CA-5 before CA-4. Are there any comments, Mr. Abbott?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: No comment.

    The Chair: Any comments from members? The question has been called.

    (Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We will now move to CA-4. I understand there are no comments, Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: That's correct.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question? The question has been called.

    (Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We'll now move to BQ-1.

[Translation]

    Ms. Gagnon, would you like to table amendment BQ-1?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, I will table it. We intend to ensure that regulations come back before the committee so that we, the committee members, can have some control over the regulations; and when they return to the ministers involved, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Heritage, it will only be to have the regulations that have been decided upon and adopted by the committee accepted. Besides, this was one of the resolutions included in the letter from the ministers of Heritage and Industry. The proposed procedure provided that the committee members have a say in the regulations.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I deeply respect this amendment, and I think, if we had not fundamentally created a situation of a carve-out and if the regulations were then going to be coming back and forming the carve-out, this amendment would be absolutely appropriate. However, I think we have done what should have been done, which is have the members of Parliament establish policy--and we have clearly established policy. The legislation now gives very clear direction to the officials. I believe, therefore, BQ-1, the Bloc amendment, is not necessary.

    The Chair: According to the advice I'm getting, you're allowed to present the amendment, but the fact is that we won't need these regulations if there is a carve-out.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I would like to confirm that such is the case. I think the intent here is to ensure that any future amendments dealing with changes to the regulations can be brought back before the committee. If that is the case, I don't believe this amendment can be deemed redundant. If this would permit any future regulations or changes thereto to come back before this committee, I think it would be very much in the spirit of what has already occurred, as Mr. Abbott said.

    The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, we've all been part of these hearings and we've listened, and my understanding is that the major concern, as Mr. Abbott just stated, was to ensure that the carve-out is statutory in nature and not regulatory. I understand where Madame Gagnon is coming from, that she'd like to see all regulations come before us. We are going to do a section 92 review of the Copyright Act, so that in a sense, this is premature. If you want the ability to have the regulations come, your amendment relates only to section 31, and you may not want to just limit it to that. We have accomplished a public policy objective and we've actually struck a balance on the ability not to allow Junk TV to go to the CRTC and then come back and perhaps have conditions imposed. While there is the importance of having regulations reviewed, as we felt at the committee, I think, by approving CA-4 and CA-5, we've struck that balance, and perhaps this is an issue we can look at the time of the review of section 92. The entire review of the Copyright Act is coming up in the fall and we'll be seized of that.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, do you have a comment?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: My amendments were moved even before any change was made in the bill with regard to exclusion. Certainly, it no longer has the same objective that I had envisaged even before Mr. Abbott's draft amendments were tabled. In fact, given that the carve-out is now in the bill... I simply wanted to check into this one again, but if we are happy with Mr. Abbott's amendments, I will withdraw mine.

[English]

     The Chair: So BQ-1 is withdrawn. We will now ask for a vote on clause 2 as amended.

    (Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

    (Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Excuse me just one minute.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

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

    Mr. Jim Abbott: If I could, that's what I wanted to mention.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: There's an anticipation that you may be able to report the bill tomorrow to the House and the House would deal with the bill at that time. I'm just wondering, if the committee ordered a reprint and the reprint were not available, if that would create any difficulty for tomorrow. That's why I'm asking the question.

    The Chair: Maybe I could ask both the clerk and the legal advisor.

    We have two alternatives. One is to adopt an order to reprint, and you're right, Mr. Abbott, if we do adopt an order to reprint, the printing won't be ready before Wednesday, so we couldn't present it to the House before Wednesday. If we don't present a motion to reprint and instead ask for the original bill, with amendments, to be presented to the House, it can be reported in that fashion, and the reprint will only occur after report stage.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I would move that.

    The Chair: So the motion is that we present to the House the bill without a reprint and amendments.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I have a bit of a problem with it, not because of the delay that's involved, but because we have made the argument in the past that it is improper to have bills reported back to the House other than in their final draft form. As far as I know, it's without precedent for bills to be sent back that have not been printed and amended. I'm a little worried about the precedent that sets. There's no rush. Yes, there's all-party agreement, yes, this will pass through, as I understand it, at all stages, but we're here Wednesday. This is a matter of a thirty-second presentation by the minster or the parliamentary secretary. I don't see why we would go to the extraordinary length of reporting back the bill without having it printed with amendments.

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay, could you give me a few seconds? We're just checking the Standing Orders.

    Our legal advisor tells me there are definitely precedents, it has been done before. But, Mr. MacKay, I think you're right to ask us to exercise caution. I think we should make doubly sure. I thank you for this. We'll just check it out to make sure, and then members will have to decide.

    Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, if the House sits on Wednesday and the bill is passed on Wednesday, is there any kind of problem with timelines?

    The Chair: We should know exactly when it...

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We must really be sure that it will not end tomorrow.

[English]

    The Chair: I think the best thing is for me to ask the legal advisor to state the case as he sees it himself, so that there's no equivocation or misunderstanding.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk): It's not at all unusual to have a bill adopted at committee stage with amendments that's not reprinted for report stage. It depends on the size of the bill, the number of amendments. It's more an administrative measure to help you out in the House at report stage. In that circumstance, I would have advised reprints, because it would be easier to find your way at report stage, but now it is your choice whether you want a reprint or not. If you do want a reprint and you table the bill by tomorrow, publication has 24 hours to provide you with the reprints, so the reprint would be ready by Wednesday morning, and you could proceed Wednesday morning or Wednesday afternoon.

    The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed with the sense of urgency that has been brought to our attention by people who are affected by the absence of this bill, and I'm just concerned. Today we had an absolutely classic example. The government wanted to get the sports bill, C-54, up before the House today. The anticipation was that the debate on the aboriginal bill was going to be done by now and we would be onto Bill C-54. In fact, I think, if we were to turn on our television sets, we would see that they're still carrying on with the aboriginal bill. With that in mind, I think, because we are coming up to the close of Parliament as early as this Friday, perhaps sooner, with the work that has gone on to this point, with the unanimity of this committee, it would be really wise of us to seize the opportunity. I believe at least four out of the five House leaders have agreed that this bill could be tabled, so we could go through report stage and have third reading tomorrow. Why don't we seize that opportunity, seeing that consensus in this place is so rare? Why don't we get the job done tomorrow, and then let the House get on with whatever else it's doing? I don't want to miss the opportunity for the people who are affected by the absence of this bill.

    The Chair: I just wanted to mention that in any event, report stage can't start before 48 hours have passed unless there's unanimous consent.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that there is one House leader who has not been consulted yet. It's not a case of the House leader saying no, it's a simple case that the House leader hasn't been consulted yet. In anticipation that this House leader would be in agreement with the other four House leaders, consent would be given, so that we would be able to meet this deadline. This, as I say, is a unique opportunity, and we could hit the mark tomorrow.

    The Chair: I'm advised that there are definitely precedents and we can produce the bill with the amendments instead of a reprinted bill. So if you feel that this would lend more security to the passage of the bill, it is for you to decide.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, perhaps there's a compromise here, given the size of this particular bill; we're talking about five pages and five amendments. I'm wondering if there is the ability on the part of the printers to have this bill ready for tomorrow, even if it came later in the day. I would suggest to you that we would still be within the timeframe Mr. Abbott suggests. I do acknowledge the unusual circumstance where there is such unanimity on this issue. I just don't believe there is the necessity to go around the normal practice of reprinting a bill. I just don't like the idea of bringing a piece of legislation that is not complete before the House. That does derogate from the precedent.

    The Chair: We're going to call the printing office to see if it can be done for tomorrow.

¹  (1555)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: If they say no, will the Conservative Party then be open to this?

    The Chair: This has already been done before. We will have to do it, and I think that if it is possible, this solution is the safest one.

[English]

    It's impossible for the printer to guarantee that there will be a reprinting on Tuesday. It takes at least 24 hours after the report of the committee has been tabled in the House by me, which is tomorrow morning, and there's no way we'll have it before Wednesday.

    There are two ways of proceeding. You proceed with the report on Wednesday after the reprint is in, or we go with the bill and amendments as an alternative.

    Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Again, my concern is that there may be agreement that the House will shut down as of Wednesday night. We already know Wednesday is a short day, and this bill getting caught in a short day and not passing third reading, which has to happen in the House, is just too much of a risk.

    I don't know where we are as far as the motion is concerned, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if I can move it or where we are. But I would move that the bill be reported, with the amendments noted, tomorrow morning.

    An hon. member: I second the motion.

    The Chair: Without reprints?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Without reprints.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): All I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that notwithstanding Mr. MacKay's concern, which I think should be applauded, I think there is clearly a will on the part of the committee to have this bill reported to the House as soon as possible. That means tomorrow, and if that involves going without a reprint for perhaps 24 hours, so be it. So I would support the bill's going ahead without a reprint, so that it can be dealt with expeditiously, as soon as tomorrow.

    The Chair: There's a motion before you to have the bill presented with the amendments, but without a reprint.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I think we have dealt with all our business today. I thank the members very much for their attention.

    The meeting is adjourned.