1988-02-03

['Mr. Speaker, public opinion on the issue of abortion is often emotionally charged, strongly held, and divisive. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code is disappointing to those of us who have spoken in support of the unborn.\nThe court has ruled that the procedures in the law which prevent abortions violate a constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person. This court decision has left', "February 3, 1988\nOral Questions\nmany health care and legal concerns about abortion in limbo. Clearly the Justices of the court have now defined a woman's right of liberty and security. While doing this the court has indicated that Parliament has a legitimate role in defining and protecting the rights of the unborn child. It is clearly reasonable that there must exist a mutual balance of rights between individuals, the mother and the unborn child.\nWe should have in place a law to protect the rights of the unborn. The Parliament of Canada must face this issue. I urge we do it quickly."]
Mr. Speaker:: Prior to calling Statements by Members, may I make the traditional announcement to the House that, in recognition of the seventy-second anniversary of the fire which destroyed the Centre Block on this date in 1916, the wooden replica of the mace has been placed on the Clerk's table. This mace was used for many years as a replacement for the original one destroyed by fire.

I should also mention that a few minutes ago, a plaque commemorating those individuals who lost their lives in the fire was unveiled in the Hall of Honour.



[Stage Direction]
1916 FIRE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: On this February 3, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians will recall the fire which destroyed the Centre Block of Parliament in 1916.
Not only did the blaze destroy a beautiful architectural structure, but seven Canadians also lost their lives, including a Member of Parliament. A new building was erected a few years later in which there was a plaque to honour the late Bowman Brown Law, the Hon. Member for Yarmouth. Regrettably there was no reference to the six other individuals who lost their lives in this fire.
This anomaly of history has lasted for 72 years. Earlier today, thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, the omission was finally
corrected and a fitting tribute was paid to the six Parliament employees who died in the 1916 blaze.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 400 railway employees in my riding and the Sarnia area I would like to appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) not to extend the time limit allowed to the arbitrator in the labour dispute between the railway companies and the unions.
Although we commend the arbitrator for the interim wage increases granted today, these workers have been without a contract for over 18 months and are getting increasingly impatient with the process. The arbitration has already gone far beyond the 60 days originally intended and still the workers have received no indication of when a final settlement will be reached.
All the relevant information has been in the hands of the arbitrator for some time now, and the workers feel that any further delays will result in renegotiation, not arbitration. The railway workers want a settlement to be reached so that they can return to being concerned about railway services rather than contract disputes.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, dioxins are probably the most toxic substance ever unleashed on our planet. Thus it is extremely troubling to learn of the 20 years of complacency of federal authorities and New Brunswick provincial authorities with respect to dioxins found in the waters and sediment around the Domtar plant in the Miramichi Basin.

February 3, 1988
Fact: In 1970, the Fisheries and Forest Department wrote to Domtar to say that the waters affected were exceedingly toxic.
Fact: In 1981, Environment Canada published a report based on years of tests on dioxins in the sediment.
Fact: In 1987, Environment Canada wrote the province with further test results showing particularly dangerous toxins at 650 times the level of background concentrations.
Fact: Fisheries Canada considered charges but never followed through.
Fact: Agriculture Canada has never conducted a study on the effects on cattle which graze in the area and on the meat which is used locally.
Fact: The Domtar plant now wants to reopen although there is stored wood on the premises yet unprotected.
When will the federal Government take its responsibility for human health, agriculture, and fisheries seriously? When will it stop ignoring its own studies, and act?
* *
*


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as of December 17, the community of Joutel has been designated according to the rules for deductions applying to residents of isolated areas. The residents of Joutel will be eligible for special deductions with respect to housing and travel benefits.
It took team work to get a fair deal for the community of Joutel, and I would like to draw your attention to the energy and enthusiasm shown by the Mayor of Joutel, Jean-Jacques Bouillon, by Robert C. Bryce of Selbaie Mines, Gilles Forgues of Agnico Eagle Mines, Bernard Le Regent of the Commission scolaire du Nouveau-Quebec, Angele Pelletier, Paul Poudrier and Gilles Joly of the United Metal Workers of America, France Langlois, representing the Labour Relations Committee of Selbaie Mines, the economic development community of Matagami-Joutel and Jacques Tremblay, President of the Lions Club.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the working people of Joutel, I wish to thank the officials and Ministers of this Government and our Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, who responded so favourably to the demands of this community.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, last March Hawker-Siddeley, the British owned multinational, announced it was going to sell or close its Trenton plant in central Nova Scotia. Closing this plant would virtually shut down the town and throw hundreds of workers onto the unemployment lines.
Shortly thereafter, Lavalin, the large multinational company from Montreal, came forward with a proposal to take over the plant. At that time federal officials gave the Lavalin proposal top marks. That was in mid 1987. Last fall the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and the then President of the Treasury Board went to Trenton to announce that no buyer could be found and Ottawa would take on the job of finding one. They signed a contract with Hawker-Siddeley agreeing to act as the company's agent and sell the plant by April 2.
Over that period the plant would be kept open with Ottawa paying for any losses the company occurred. As part of the deal for Ottawa acting as a middleman, Hawker-Siddeley insisted and Ottawa agreed that any new owner not be allowed for a period of three years to lease railcars that it produces. According to the union officials, if the plant is only allowed to make railcars for sales, it would almost certainly fail again.
There is a glut of railcars on the market at the present time due to overproduction in the United States. Why has the Government agreed to such a deal? Why is it agreeing to the eventual shut-down of the Trenton industry?
Last November the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited Trenton and Pictou County. He told the workers his Government was working hard to find a buyer. Where is the action by this Government?
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Afghans throughout the world have been horrified and appalled to see their homeland torn apart, their families and friends killed, and their children maimed, in the course of eight years of brutal occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops. There are estimates that over 163,000 children between the ages of eight and 14 years have been kidnapped and sent to the Soviet Union for indoctrination. Despite all this, the Afghanistan fighting spirit has survived and will ultimately result in victory.
February 3, 1988

The Afghanistan Association of Ontario has demanded an immediate withdrawal of all Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the return of the kidnapped children to their grieving mothers. They ask the Government of Canada to officially recognize the Afghan Mujahadeen, to send humanitarian aid to the liberated areas of Afghanistan, and to apply effective political and economic pressures on the Soviet Union.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to use these and all other means available to him to obtain an immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, native people and native organizations across Canada are struggling to develop their cultural identities and achieve selfreliance and self-determination. A crucial component of this process is the ability to communicate effectively in their own languages.
Native language programs are being developed by bands across Canada as a major step towards native cultural development, yet the federal Government refuses to support such programs in a satisfactory way and to a sufficient degree.
I therefore urge the Government to fund fully language and cultural programs such as that of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council which includes the bands of Kamloops, Little Shuswap, Neskainlith, North Thompson, Pavilion, Shuswap, Spallumcheen and Skeetchestn, Adams Lake and Bonaparte, and other native groups as well, so that native people both young and old can achieve the cultural goals they have set to meet their desire for self-determination and self-government.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, for the past number of months various polls have told us that the Opposition has followed the strategy of questioning the Government's credibility rather than its record or policies.
With the next budget statement one week away, it might be worth while to recall what some opposition Members said after the Economic Statement of November, 1984. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said: "They will destroy thousands of jobs. The effect of this program would be a net increase in unemployment". The Hon. Member for
Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said: "As many as 100,000 people could lose their jobs". The former Member for Hamilton Mountain said: "Fifty thousand will become unemployed". The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said after the May, 1985, Budget: "There is a lack of job creation".
Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. Over a million jobs have been created since that first statement. It is the credibility of the Opposition that Canadians should question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, language teachers working for the Department of National Defence put up picket lines yesterday to protest against the federal Government's refusal to negotiate. To summarize the situation, here are a few passages from a letter I received from a language teacher in Saint-Jean, Quebec, and I quote:
The Government's refusal to negotiate is a clear indication of bad faith, is unacceptable in a democracy like ours and reflects the government's negative and cavalier attitude to bilingualism in the Public Service and at the Department of National Defence. For three years we have seen our teaching environment deteriorate. At the Department of National Defence, bilingualism has been put on the back burner. The last report of the Commissioner for Official Languages pointed out that the Department of National Defence was lagging far behind in its implemention of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, in light of this statement, I hope the Hon. Member from Saint-Jean will find time to represent his constituents and put pressure on the Government in order to obtain justice, so that the union's demand that Treasury Board return to the bargaining table can be met-that would seem to be entirely elementary-and government policy on official languages observed at the Department of National Defence.


ABORTION
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, public opinion on the issue of abortion is often emotionally charged, strongly held, and divisive. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code is disappointing to those of us who have spoken in support of the unborn.
The court has ruled that the procedures in the law which prevent abortions violate a constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person. This court decision has left

February 3, 1988
Oral Questions
many health care and legal concerns about abortion in limbo. Clearly the Justices of the court have now defined a woman's right of liberty and security. While doing this the court has indicated that Parliament has a legitimate role in defining and protecting the rights of the unborn child. It is clearly reasonable that there must exist a mutual balance of rights between individuals, the mother and the unborn child.
We should have in place a law to protect the rights of the unborn. The Parliament of Canada must face this issue. I urge we do it quickly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister heads the most dishonest government in human memory. Scandal after scandal-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members when they are putting their questions to lay the facts that are necessary for a preamble and not to use unnecessarily provocative language.
[ Translation]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about scandal after scandal, resignation after resignation. There is something rotten here, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister intervenes to restore order, but not until he has his back against the wall.
How can the Prime Minister justify his Government's incredible lack of integrity and what are the full circumstances . . .


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I would ask the Leader of the Official Opposition to use the kind of language that is appropriate to a preamble.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, your advice is always well taken, but this is a sad day for Canada, and I have the right to ask the question.
What are the full circumstances of the Minister's firing? What actually happened? Are there other facts that have not been revealed? And why was this Minister fired, while for some strange reason, another Minister who behaved in a reprehensible fashion is still sitting in Cabinet? What made the Prime Minister decide he could dispense with this Minister? And why only him?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the Prime Minister acts, and I quote: "only when he has his back against the wall." As far as I know, no reports on these events had been published yesterday afternoon. Once I received the information, brief though it was, I gave the necessary instructions. An investigation was carried out, and upon confirmation of these facts, I communicated with the Minister and immediately asked him for his resignation.
It seems to me that this is how a Prime Minister should act, with the severity and celerity dictated by the circumstances.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened through the media to the Prime Minister's remarks this morning before and after his caucus. I want to say to him that no one will be fooled by his election year commitment to ethics. A leopard does not change its spots.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why does one Minister who may have violated the conflict of interest guidelines get the boot and yet another Minister who violated the Canada Elections Act, and who covered up that fact and covered up that letter-


Mr. Masse:: Not true!


John Napier Turner: -for two years is still in Cabinet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that language which impugns the honour of another Member is not appropriate in a preamble. If one wants to lay a charge then there are other places to do it.
I would ask the right hon. gentleman to co-operate with the Chair and to put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 cite the letter which has been publicly discussed on the floor of this House from the Electoral Officer that, in light of that letter, this Minister violated or participated in an infraction of the Elections Act. That is in the letter.
I say to the Prime Minister that he has run out of scapegoats for failure to do his job. The Government he leads has no moral tone.
February 3, 1988

Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BY HOUSE TO COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Day after day the Prime Minister has promised the House that a parliamentary committee will have the opportunity to question the Minister of Energy. Yet a Conservative majority on that committee has blocked an inquiry.
1 ask the Prime Minister, if that committee is not relevant, will he authorize his House Leader to set up a committee in order that we can examine the Minister of Energy? Does he think that acting on one scandal allows him to cover up another?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest guidelines are, as I have acknowledged many times, the responsibility of the Prime Minister; and the integrity of the Government and all of its Members is also the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
I am as saddened, as I am sure any Member of the House is, or any Leader of any political Party, when any Member of his political Party, or any Member of the House, fails to comply, not only with the conflict of interest guidelines, but with any rules and regulations that govern our conduct. It is a serious problem in the 1980s, particularly conflict of interest, not only in this jurisdiction but in all jurisdictions.
I said this morning, and I have said in other circumstances, that I view the conflict of interest guidelines with the utmost of importance, and their enforcement will be with the utmost of severity.
I deeply regret, obviously, any breach, inadvertent or otherwise, of the guidelines, because the Canadian people are entitled to the observance of the highest standards. When those standards are lessened in any way, clearly this is unacceptable to me, and unacceptable to all Members of the House.
With regard to the conflict of interest guidelines, therefore, which are under my direct responsibility, when I was apprised, not of a violation, but of the possibility of a violation, which was not public knowledge in any way, I immediately instructed the officials of the Government to seek confirmation, and if confirmation was forthcoming, to provide it to me. When that was done, I immediately acted to seek the resignation of a Minister. It seems to me that that is in keeping with the most genuine spirit of parliamentary accountability and responsibility-
In regard to a separate matter, the administration of which law does not come under me but comes under an independent officer of Parliament, a parliamentary committee is presently considering this. The Minister of Energy has publicly stated that it would be his intention, at an appropriate time, to go before that committee and provide whatever testimony is required.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Elections, Privileges and Procedure Committee will not be able to summon the Minister to appear, will not be able to ask questions about specific violations of the Canada Elections Act, yet the Prime Minister had made a commitment in the House of Commons on January 28 that the Minister would appear when he stated:
The suggestion is that it be considered by a parliamentary committee. When
the Minister returns the Hon. Member may want to interrogate him-
In answering the Leader of the NDP, who stated that he would not be able to question the Minister in committee, the Prime Minister stated:
The Member says that he cannot under the rules. He can in the committee.
If the matter is referred to a committee-
I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will live up to his commitment and cause a motion to pass this House that will define the terms of reference that would allow the committee to inquire fully into the election expenses violations, that would give the committee the power to summon the Minister and other relevant witnesses, and to obtain relevant documents.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend was not listening to the answer that I just gave to his Leader in respect of summoning the Minister. I have already indicated that the Minister will voluntarily appear before the committee and respond to whatever questions the Hon. Member cares to ask him.


John Napier Turner: The committee says it can't hear him.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister will be there. If the committee want to hear him, they will hear him, and I suppose they will.


DEFINITION OF MANDATE PERMITTING COMMITTEE TO MAKE COMPLETE INVESTIGATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: It is obvious that the Prime Minister was not informed about the terms of reference which have been established for the committee as they will not allow the members of the committee to request the presence of the Minister, nor to ask questions about specific infractions committed by specific individuals. The House must therefore adopt a motion that will clearly define the terms of reference and will allow a full investigation. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake, on behalf of his party, to support such a motion which will give the committee sufficiently wide terms of reference to allow the Committee to fully inquire into this affair rather than this travesty we are witnessing now.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury

February 3, 1988
Oral Questions
Board): Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member is acting like a bit of a cry-baby. He was sitting on that committee and he was involved in establishing the terms of reference.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on!


Mr. Mazankowski:: I have the terms of reference-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One vote.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have the terms of reference in my hand. They state as follows: "That the committee request Mr. Gorman and Mr. Hamel to appear before this committee at the soonest possible time, preferably 3.30 o'clock p.m. tomorrow," which is today, "to discuss procedures and practices relating to alleged violations of elections expenses"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, they do not even want to hear the terms of reference which are very pertinent to this case.


An Hon. Member:: What about Mr. Masse?


Mr. Speaker:: Questions have been put to the Government with respect to the committee and what the committee did. What the committee did, of course, is its own business. However, the question has been put that if the committee does not have the power that somebody thinks it should have, what is the Government's response? The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is trying to give that response, and I would ask that Hon. Members give him the courtesy to hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members across the way have forgotten the meaning of the word "courtesy" in this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The terms of reference that were decided upon yesterday are, and I quote: "That the committee request Mr. Gorman and Mr. Hamel to appear before this committee at the soonest possible time, preferably 3.30 o'clock p.m. tomorrow," which is today, "to discuss the procedures and practices relating to alleged violations of election expenses, and the committee commits itself in principle to call on any other person or persons who may have relevant information regarding the administration of the Elections Act".
The Prime Minister just indicated that the Minister will in all probability want to volunteer-


Jacques Guilbault: Probably!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, wants to, will volunteer to appear before the committee. What more do Members want?


Jacques Guilbault: We will not be able to ask him questions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he is prepared to appear before the committee, will you be prepared to be there to ask the questions? That is the point.


Jacques Guilbault: Don't worry about that. [Translation]


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for Canada and for the politics in this country. That is a fact.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF HOUSE ORDER STIPULATING TERMS OF REFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, and either he can answer it or the Prime Minister, because once again I think they are just trying to cover up the whole situation and I regret that.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: There are, of course, different ways to say "cover up", but I think it is quite clear that that is an allegation which is not appropriate under the circumstances. The Hon. Member knows that the Chair, as has been the case in the past, has been more than prepared to accept and support an inquiry and questions.
I am asking Hon. Members to put those questions in appropriate wording.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the Prime Minister. Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said that the committee is going to hear witnesses who are strictly pertinent to the situation at hand involving the Hon. Member for Frontenac, namely Mr. Gorman and certain others; considering that the Prime Minister has indicated the Hon. Member for Frontenac has indicated that he would appear as well; and considering that the terms of reference under which the committee is operating do not permit it to discuss with these witnesses the specific case involving the Hon. Member for Frontenac, will the Government do the right thing and bring in a House order, change the terms of reference, have the Member go as a witness and discuss the whole situation fully and frankly? That is the issue here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is really never satisfied with what he gets. Originally Members opposite wanted this matter referred to a committee.


Jacques Guilbault: It has not been referred.
February 3, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The issue has been referred to a committee.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: It has not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The committee is seized with it.


Mr. Tobin:: It is seized up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Terms of reference have been established. An investigation is going on. Hon. Members wanted the assurance that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would appear before the committee. That assurance is being given.
Today two very important witnesses are going to testify before that committee. I am sure that if, during the course of that testimony today it gives rise to the requirement for further witnesses to appear, the committee can then seize itself of that opportunity and explore any questions that may arise out of the testimony that is presented today.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have two very important witnesses, officers of Parliament, who are charged with the responsibility of the administration of the Act. It would seem to me that it would be natural for Members opposite to want to hear what they have to say because they are, in effect, responsible for the administration of the Act.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: These answers, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, are truly incredible.
The Chair of that committee has already said that the witnesses who are going to appear cannot deal with the specific case involving the Member for Frontenac. They cannot deal with the specific allegation. The committee has already made that ruling, the Chair has announced that. Is this anything other than a serious cover-up, an avoidance of the truth, instead of getting on-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that I do not want to hear the words "cover up" used with dishonest connotations again. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to want to engage in grandstanding again.


John Edward Broadbent: We want the truth.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What he is really trying to do here-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party may have erred in putting his question, but the question still is there. I want the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite went into this case with their eyes wide open. Quite frankly, there were discussions between House Leaders as to how this matter might be dealt with. My colleague, the Deputy House Leader, on January 28, said, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, as found on page 12380 of Hansard:
The Hon. Member will know that there are two ways of sending this to
committee. One is by specific reference and one is by the committee deciding
how it wants to handle it.
We are up for discussions.
The discussions took place. The agreement took place. Now Members opposite want something else. They are never satisfied.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE MOTION FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to put the question to the Prime Minister in the most perfect straightforward terms.
Since it is necessary for the committee to have a specific motion accepted by this House that would enable it to look into the allegations made about the Member for Frontenac, since it is required to have a motion from the House for it to do that, since the Prime Minister is on the record as saying he wants a full discussion, will the Government do the right thing now and announce its intention to bring that kind of motion before the House today so we can all agree with it and get on to the serious discussion which the Prime Minister said he wanted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the New Democrats are changing their minds. They want to superimpose the NDP's wish on the committee. The committee has made a decision. There have been discussions between the two House Leaders. If that is something-


John Edward Broadbent: You are finished with this.


Mr. Nystrom:: Be honest and open.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre.

February 3, 1988
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


RESIGNATION OF FORMER MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY CABINET OFFICIAL
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is about the former Minister of Supply and Services.
On December 4 when I was asking the Prime Minister about other scandals affecting his Government he said, as reported at page 11491 of Hansard, that he had:
-instructed the Associate Secretary of the Cabinet, Mr. J. L. Manion, to
review personally with each Minister his or her situation under the code very
carefully, and advise me in regard to that interrogation.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this was done in the case of the Minister whose resignation he sought yesterday, and did he receive a satisfactory report following the investigation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, it was done, Mr. Speaker. The report that came back from the Associate Secretary of the Cabinet, having met with the Minister and having received his response to appropriate documents and questions, was that, on the information that had been given to the Associate Secretary of the Cabinet, all was in order.


PROTECTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Prime Minister the following question. In light of the decision he made to seek and receive the resignation of that Minister, has he taken any other measures, within the responsibilities of the Minister that he discharged since he became a member of the Cabinet, to assure that the public interest was not compromised by that Minister while he held that office in his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. But I should point out to my hon. friend that pursuant to the exhaustive report, and it was an exhaustive meeting that Mr. Manion had with each one of the Ministers, which was followed up with a very exacting series of questionnaires and interrogations by Mr. Manion of each of the Ministers to ensure full and complete compliance with all of the conflict of interest guidelines, that further to receiving a complete report from the Associate Secretary of Cabinet it indicated that there was compliance by the then Minister of Supply and Services.
Clearly it was not until yesterday when the matter was brought to my attention that there might be a violation, an infringement or a degree of non-compliance, this was new information that was imparted to me, upon which I acted immediately. I have since, of course, given instructions to ensure that all necessary follow-ups that my hon. friend would approve of have been done.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming. I want to ask the Member specifically to confirm to this House that, in fact, yesterday afternoon following the adoption of the motion by the committee as read by the Deputy Prime Minister, he ruled that no specific questions could be asked with respect to the Member for Frontenac.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that I appreciate very much the good tone of his question but I think that that question is out of order.
Would the Hon. Member seek his information in another way? What the Hon. Member is doing is asking about something that happened or something that was said as differentiated from expected procedures or plans of the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Will the Chairman of the committee consider questions from committee members that deal specifically with the Member for Frontenac's alleged infractions of the Canada Elections Act?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, may I first congratulate him on an amendment to our main motion in committee yesterday supporting the bringing in of both Mr. Hamel and Mr. Gorman. It certainly shows that the New Democrats and the Conservatives can support this motion.
Under the guidelines of our committee, we will deal with the process and the procedures under that mandate. We will be prepared, with a reference to the House; if this is given, we will investigate the individual.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE BE PRESENTED WITH MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the answer we have just been given by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, will the Prime Minister indeed get such a reference presented to the House so we can do the things he had been promising us we should be doing with respect to the Hon. Member for Frontenac?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury
February 3, 1988

Board): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wishes to negotiate terms of reference on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are usual procedures for that. The Deputy House Leader offered two alternatives last week as to how we might proceed. I understand that there was a process established. If the Hon. Member wants his House Leader to discuss this matter with our House Leader, 1 am sure we can discuss it and hopefully arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want me to draw to their attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the International Olympic Committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I shall address my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
For the last two years Eastern Montreal social, economic and political groups have been asking the federal Government to take action to promote the economic recovery of their regions. The Committee for the Economic Recovery of Eastern Montreal, presided by Mr. Pichette, submitted a report to the Government last September recommending that the Government contribute $25 million for their Business Restructuring and Modernization Assistance Office, create a special fund to train workers and implement a pre-retirement adjustment program. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Can he tell us when his Government will respond to these three requests to promote economic recovery in Eastern Montreal? Are we going to receive favorable replies to these requests, and if so, when?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the $38 million injected by this Government in Eastern Montreal
Oral Questions
since 1984, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has indicated that he will be able to give his response to the report mentioned by the Hon. Member in the near future. I expect that the Minister will announce the response of the Government to this report reasonably soon after his return to Canada.


DEVELOPMENT OF OLD PORT-INFUSION OF $30 MILLION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec are fed up. They realize that Ministers from Quebec are always involved in scandals and are busy taking care of their own interests instead of defending the interests of Quebecers.
My question is this: The Picard Report, the Pichette Report, the people of Montreal. . . My supplementary question is for the Minister of Public Works. The City of Montreal has been waiting for two years for this Government to inject $130 million in the development of the Montreal Old Port. All other municipalities have received it. Can the Minister tell us why Montreal has had nothing? Is it because the Ministers from Quebec are too busy promoting their own interests through shady affairs instead of defending the people of Montreal?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there are consultations ongoing with provincial and municipal Governments and a report should be filed shortly.


THE CABINET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister of Canada. 1 think the Prime Minister realizes that the Canadian people must have a Government that is frank and open in its dealings with the nation.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister could expand on the reasons why the Minister was fired. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether there was an investigation, and if so, what kind? And finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the House, whether the investigation only concerned a possible conflict of interest or whether other aspects were being investigated as well?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister will make a statement in the House at three o'clock. I expect he will be in a position to respond to some of my hon. friend's questions and concerns.
The Hon. Member referred to the need for a Government to be frank and open. Well, yesterday at 1 p.m. was the first time

February 3, 1988
Oral Questions
1 heard that the possibility of a conflict of interest existed. 1 immediately asked officials to arrange for a meeting with the Minister. Once certain facts had been checked, I took immediate action, that is, I got in touch with the Minister and asked him for his resignation, and I did so well before there had been any reports or rumours of any kind in the media.
I think that is an example of the celerity and decisiveness that should be the rule in such cases.
My hon. friend knows perfectly well, and it is of course most unfortunate, that in the course of this decade, conflict of interest has been and remains a serious problem for all politicians. We have had that problem here, Manitoba has had its problems, and I am told that three Ministers in the Ontario Government had to resign in a matter of weeks or months. And quite recently, Quebec's Solicitor General had to resign because of a conflict of interest. This is a new and difficult problem, a problem of our times, and 1 believe we will have to act severely in all cases, as 1 have done. However, the problem is not peculiar to this Government. It is a national problem and we have to deal with it very seriously.


CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION-PROTECTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in a serious vein as well, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain to the House who is doing the investigation. Is it being done entirely by the Prime Minister's Office and is it limited to the possibility of a conflict of interest? Finally, can he assure the House that this possible conflict of interest did not influence the duties of the Minister in a negative way when he was fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to him by the Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question. I believe it has been answered. I can tell my hon. friend in regard to the allegation raised that, without this matter having appeared anywhere in newspapers or ever having been raised in the House of Commons, when the first suggestion of the existence of a conflict was brought to my attention, I immediately, yesterday afternoon, asked if confirmation of this might exist. When it appeared that it did exist, I acted immediately, as I think a Prime Minister should.
I would think my hon. friend would perhaps agree as a parliamentarian that, as regrettable as conflicts of interest are, conflicts which exist in every jurisdiction of Canada, this is the swift manner in which they ought to be dealt with.


WAR CRIMINALS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister will know that officials from his Department are currently negotiating agreements in Soviet Bloc countries for the taking and use of evidence from the Soviet Bloc in Canadian trials for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Minister will also know that all elements of Soviet bureaucracy, including the judiciary, are controlled by the Communist Party which has a long record of falsifying documents to achieve its political goals.
Will the Minister tell the House what precautions his officials are taking to protect innocent Canadians from fabricated Soviet evidence?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member who has had a substantial interest in this issue. Hon. Members will recall that one of the important conclusions of the Deschenes Commission, in light of the fact that it was not in a position to travel and hold hearings overseas or behind the Iron Curtain, was that there should be established safeguards with respect to the taking of evidence and the terms of investigations of alleged crimes. We as a Government, and I on behalf of the Government, accepted the recommendations of the Deschenes Commission.
We are in fact now negotiating with a variety of countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain to make sure that the Deschenes conditions are met, namely, the protection of reputations through confidentiality, the use of independent interpreters, access to original documents, access to witnesses' previous statements, freedom of examination of witnesses in agreement with Canadian rules of evidence, and the videotaping of such evidence.
We intend to make sure that Canadian standards of justice prevail with respect to prosecutions undertaken.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the resignation of the Minister of Supply and Services. The Prime Minister has said that he has made himself personally responsible for the administration of his conflict of interest guidelines, and he is certainly responsible for his choice of Ministers for his Cabinet.
||

February 3, 1988

Will the Prime Minister tell us right now exactly what information was given to him and exactly why he decided, on the basis of that information, to obtain the resignation of the Minister of Supply and Services? The Canadian people have a right to know exactly what led the Prime Minister to get this resignation.
Right Elon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I indicated that in the statement yesterday and 1 have said in the House that what led me to secure the resignation of the Minister was the fact that a personal loan to the Minister had not been disclosed, which I believe to be in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines.


NON-DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL LOAN
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, why will the Prime Minister not give us the details of this personal loan and give us his judgment as to why that personal loan and the failure to disclose it contravened his conflict of interest guidelines? Why is he attempting to evade his responsibility to keep the Canadian public informed about the way in which he is carrying out or not carrying out his responsibilities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing, obviously, to let the Canadian public decide, at an appropriate time, how I am carrying out my responsibilities in this and other areas. I think that most Canadians would agree that this matter was dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
With regard to any questions my hon. friend has with regard to details, he may care to wait for a statement by the Minister which I have indicated will be made here in the House in a few minutes.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he confirm, on behalf of the Government, that he will agree in principle to make a reference to the committee with regard to the specific allegations against the Member for Frontenac and guarantee that that committee will have the power to call all necessary witnesses? Will he give us that guarantee?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself quite clear when I said that the House Leaders could meet and discuss the appropriate terms of reference which they may want to consider since the NDP has changed its mind about this issue. That can happen sometime later today or tomorrow. I am sure the Deputy House Leader would be very prepared to sit down
Oral Questions
with his counterparts on the other side and try to work out a satisfactory arrangement.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Deputy Prime Minister keeps saying that the New Democratic Party has changed its mind. It has not. We have always wanted to get at the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: The only way we can get at the truth is if we have a specific reference from this House and the Deputy Prime Minister has so far refused to promise that he will make a commitment to doing that.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE ON TERMS OF REFERENCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Deputy Prime Minister give his commitment, now that we will have the two witnesses before the committee in one-half hour. Let us not waste our time. Let us have a guarantee now that the Minister agrees, on behalf of the Government, to the principle of having a specific reference giving us all the powers that we need.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has refused nothing of the sort. I will point out again that on January 28 my colleague, the Deputy House Leader, reminded the Members opposite that:
-there are two ways of sending this to committee. One is by specific
reference and one is by the committee deciding how it wants to handle it. We
are up for discussions.
As we were then, we are today.
The Hon. Member is making a suggestion. He knows very well that these are the kinds of things which are negotiated among the House Leaders. They now want to break a tradition and practice which have served this House very usefully over the past number of years.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night, through a spokesman, the Prime Minister's Office issued a version of the facts with respect to the firing of the Minister of Supply and Services. The people of Canada have a right to know all the facts.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House when and from what source his office first learned of the potential conflict of interest by the Minister of Supply and Services? Can he tell

February 3, 1988
Oral Questions
the Elouse as well whether or not there is any official investigation as a result of this firing of the Minister of Supply and Services?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have answered all of those questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the questions. We will hear from the Minister at three o'clock.


TIME INFORMATION GIVEN TO PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port

St. Barbe): Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister again, when did the Prime Minister's Office or people in government first hear of a potential conflict of interest, from where did they get that information, and is there a police investigation today or has there been one into all the circumstances regarding this potential conflict of interest and the firing of the Minister of Supply and Services? Please answer the question.
Martin Brian Mulroney: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FARM IMPROVEMENT MARKETING COOPERATIVES LOANS ACT
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On Monday of this week the agriculture critic for the NDP stated that there would be a delay in the implementation of the new Farm Improvement Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act.
Given the importance of this new program for farmers in financial difficulty, could the Minister clarify for all farmer applicants across Canada when the program will be in effect?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the Hon. Member's question because it provides me with yet another opportunity, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government, to deliver more good news to Canadian farmers.
The Act has been proclaimed on time. The regulations have been completed on time. Consultation has taken place, and as early as last Monday we were in the process of utilizing that new financial instrument and we are in the process of making loans to Canadian farmers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that today could turn out to be either a very positive day or a very negative day for the peace process in Central America, depending on how the United States Congress responds to President Reagan's most recent request for funding for the Contras. The Prime Minister will also know of the profound disapproval of most Canadians for the approach of the United States Government in Central America.
Would the Prime Minister not take this opportunity, as the Prime Minister of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, to say something today to the United States Congress about how much Canada would like it if the Congress turned down the President's proposal for further funding?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is the Member of the NDP actually suggesting that we as a Parliament insinuate ourselves into the deliberative rights of another sovereign parliamentary body? The Parliament of Canada would react very strongly if anybody tried to tell us what to do. I am offended by the suggestion of the NDP that we impose our will, or seek to, on the Congress of the United States.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well, as does everyone in this House, that from time to time we do express ourselves about what other Governments do, whether it is the Government of South Africa, the Government of the Soviet Union, or any other Government which, in our judgment, is imperilling the peace of the world.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Prime Minister not to attack the United States but simply to offer a legitimate criticism on behalf of the Canadian people that now is the time for the United States to do what all five Governments in Central America are saying that it should do, that is, to discontinue funding for the Contras.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the American parliamentarians are considering an important vote today. That is entirely their right, as it is for Members of Parliament to vote moneys as we deem fit in the national interest. I presume that is what all American parliamentarians will do.
In regard to the position of the Government of Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is presently in southern Africa, was most recently in Central America setting out with some success and influence, I believe, an appropriate and independent statement of foreign policy which reflects the
February 3, 1988

Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
views of the Government and people of Canada as to the manner in which peace can best emerge in Central America. That is the right and obligation of the Government of Canada, a sovereign nation. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do.
['Agreed.', 'February 3, 1988\nCopyright Act']
The Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that 1 have received notice from the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote) who wishes to make a statement to this place on a question of personal privilege.



Hon. Michel Cote (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), I handed in my resignation as Minister of Supply and Services. Today, I would like to explain here in the House the circumstances that led me to do so. The demands of political life in recent years, both on my family and on me personally, led me to ask an old friend for a personal loan, and he agreed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear before the House that this circumstance never in any way placed me in a position where my interests conflicted with the ministerial duties that were mine in this Government. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure my colleagues in the House that the friend in question never received any favours or privileges in return.
However, I involuntarily neglected to declare this situation as required by the conflict of interest directives, thus contravening the spirit of the Ministers' code of conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I sincerely regret this serious error of omission.
Mr. Prime Minister, obviously I sincerely regret the embarrassment I have caused the Government and you yourself, Prime Minister.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say that it has been an honour and a privilege to serve as a Member of Cabinet, and 1 would like to thank my colleagues and all Members of this House who gave me their support when I was exercising my ministerial duties.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 also wish to thank my constituents in Langelier for their constant support, and I can assure them that I will continue to be a faithful defender of their interests, both here and in my riding.


ABORTION
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) requested that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) table a letter which he had sent to his provincial counterparts regarding the Supreme Court decision on abortion.
I am pleased to table copies of these letters today on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is unable to be here at this time.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York- Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, I have the honour to present the committee's first report in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who are concerned because the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude the trade deal with the United States.
They believe that this trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and thereby undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. They believe that the trade deal denies Canada secure access to the U.S. market which was, of course, the key objective in the trade negotiations, and threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to dissolve now in order to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to

February 3, 1988
Petitions
accept or reject the trade deal during a national general election.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition from residents of Canada who are concerned about the trade agreement between Canada and the United States and feel that it will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence. Therefore, the petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people by calling a general election.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which deals with the same subject. It is signed by hundreds of people from my constituency and parts of southwestern Ontario. It indicates their serious concern with the plans of the Conservative Government to proceed with signing a trade agreement with the United States despite the lack of a mandate from the Canadian people.
These people feel that this trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. The undersigned therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and permit the Canadian people to make a choice with respect to this issue before it is too late.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have petitions from the City of Vancouver, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody, British Columbia, all three very illustrious and important areas in British Columbia.
The petitions deal with the trade agreement originally signed with the United States. The petitioners state that the agreement removes the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively and, more important to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions. The petitioners humbly pray that before the Government completes this deal and enacts it into legislation, it will call a national general election on the issue.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the two petitions I am tabling today were signed by residents of St. John's, Newfoundland; London, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Douglastown, New Brunswick; and Niagara Falls, Ontario.
The undersigned deplore the fact that last year, over
100,000	persons were homeless in Canada; that the number of homeless young people, women and entire families is increasing steadily; that the number of affordable housing units is still
dropping; and that the Government has yet to take action to deal with these problems.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to take immediate action to provide all Canadians with acceptable and satisfactory accommodation and to establish social reintegration programs to help these needy Canadians become part of our society again.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from citizens from across Ontario. Considering that the present Government trade agreement between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence, and considering that such an agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions, the undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada, and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions from residents of my constituency of Sarnia- Lambton. These good residents are dismayed that, in their opinion, the fundamental issues of social and economic justice remain inadequately addressed in Guatemala. They humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to reject any proposed renewal of unilateral aid to the Guatemalan Government. Instead, they ask that aid be administered by Canadian NGOs through their Guatemalan counterparts.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition is from a number of residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in respect of Bill C-54, which creates new laws against the production, sale, rental and distribution of pornography. Whereas the petitioners are concerned that the pressures exerted by various permissive minority groups may cause the Government to water down and weaken this legislation, the petitioners call upon the Government to pass Bill C-54 without dilution in the belief that this Bill gives recognition to the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young people who are the most vulnerable to exploitation in this area.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition from a number of residents of the Cabri district in Saskatchewan. The petitioners note that whereas farmers and fishermen for many
February 3, 1988

years have enjoyed the right to block average their incomes, and that the Minister of Finance (Mr, Wilson) on December 16, 1987, indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging, the petitioners call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on tax reform, stage one.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, 1 have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by constituents in the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the neighbourhoods of Westfort and Northwood and from the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, from Jumbo Gardens in the west end area. The petitioners reject the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and call upon this Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster and Burnaby, British Columbia, with respect to the increasing crimes, including murder, robbery and sexual assaults, which have been committed with knives. This trend is on the increase in all major cities across Canada. Whereas the law through the federal Criminal Code allows citizens to carry knives for self-defence, and these knives, used by persons in public places, are often directly responsible for a variety of crimes, therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the federal Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places, with the exception from this ban being those who use knives for legitimate work or who wear them for religious reasons.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition, duly certified by the Clerk, from residents of Toronto, St. Catharines and Brockville, Ontario. These citizens are concerned that the trade deal negotiated between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada and the President of the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence. They also feel that it will lead to a loss of jobs in many regions.
Therefore, the petitioners request the Parliament of Canada to obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour and privilege pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition signed by residents of my riding,
Motions for Papers
particularly the communities of Fort Frances, Pine Wood and Stratton. These petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve in order that a national general election may be held so that the people of Canada can be heard on the proposed trade agreement with the United States of America.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition which has been certified as correct under Standing Order 106. These petitioners, citizens of Canada, state that the trade agreement between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence and that such an agreement implies a loss of jobs in many sectors and regions. The undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada, and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House today a petition on behalf of Toronto residents stating their opposition to the closure of the Canadian embassy in Ecuador and the hardship that is imposed on individuals seeking to apply for immigration to Canada and to obtain visitors' visas. The petitioners urge Parliament and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reverse the decision and reopen the Canadian embassy in Ecuador.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to report to the House and rule with respect to the report stage of Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. There are six motions on amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).

Motion No. 1 was moved in committee, debated at length and finally defeated. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 114(10), the motion will not be selected.

Motion No. 2 causes the Chair some difficulty. That part of Motion No. 2 which is lettered "e" was moved, debated and then withdrawn in committee. In addition, the Chair is of the opinion that the whole motion goes beyond the scope of the clause and the Bill which it attempts to improve upon. This is not in order. May I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, Citation 773, and to May, Twentieth Edition, page 555.
I would also like to refer the Hon. Member to page 308 of the Selected Decisions of Speaker Lamoureux where it is clearly stated that a "-proposed amendment must be relevant-(and) can amplify aspects of a motion but cannot expand its scope." Thus I will not put Motion No. 2 to the House.

Motion Nos. 3 and 4 are acceptable and will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions No. 5 and 6 are somewhat similar. A motion exactly the same as Motion No. 6 was moved, debated and voted on in the negative in committee. Thus Motion No. 6 will not be selected.
Motion No. 5, while similar, is varied enough for the Chair to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. Thus Motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 3.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously, I accept your ruling. I hope that, notwithstanding, Your Honour will relax the rules of relevance, allowing me in my remarks to address what I consider to be the serious deficiencies in this Bill that my motion on ephemeral recordings for broadcasters and spontaneous rights for educators would have alleviated. This view is held by many Canadians. I would appreciate Your Honour's consideration in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal raises a matter which, of course, is in the discretion of the Chair. I hope that her request will be given reasonable and sympathetic attention.
I want to say to all Hon. Members how much the Chair appreciates the co-operation of the Hon. Member with respect to these motions. There was some considerable difficulty in choosing the motions that are the subject of the ruling of the Chair. I know that the Hon. Member felt very strongly and does feel very strongly about this entire issue. However, the Hon. Member has very graciously co-operated with the Chair and the Table Officers in the best tradition that we are establishing here. I want to express my personal appreciation to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for that.


Mr. Clinch:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I assume that the same latitude will be afforded the Parliamentary Secretary in response to some of the motions proposed by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: When the House is in an amiable mood, of course, all Hon. Members are treated the same way.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-60, be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 39 to 48 at
page 14 and lines 1 to 19 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"13. Subsections 50( 1) to (10) of the said Act are repealed."
She said: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my amendment which addresses Clause 13, Section 50(7), I would point out that this is an obsolete measure. It has never worked. Those who use the music in a public place or in a retail outlet are essentially commercial users who are accruing benefits, income, and in a sense depriving the creators of those lovely sounds coming across the airwaves of their just and due economic rights. That is what this Bill is all about. It deals with copyright which would affect and bring economic rights to creators in our society.
If the intention of Bill C-60 is to provide economic benefit to creators, the retention of Section 50(7) in the Act is inconsistent with the goals of the Bill. Therefore it should be removed. It is also very inconsistent when the Chair has had to rule that my amendments are beyond the scope of the Bill. I suggest that while the Government and, obviously, Ministers have the right, which I willingly accept and argued vigorously about with the Table Officers, they have avoided addressing some
February 3, 1988

very serious matters. At the same time they have shown incredible inconsistency by retaining an issue that is an exemption. After wiping out the entire Section 50(1) through (10) they have decided to keep one single clause, which is the exemption clause. That makes absolutely no sense.
The section has been judicially interpreted to exempt also public performances by means of juke boxes or similar devices where the user pays a fee to obtain the performance. The exemption does not include wired music systems where the music originates with a phonograph in one location and is distributed by wire or other means to speakers placed in another location or locations. Since the section refers to "gramophone" and "radio receiving set" it presently may not extend to performances produced by tape recorders or television.
The Liberal Government White Paper entitled From Gutenberg to Telidon in 1984, which was a consultation paper, and the Conservative Government's subcommittee study on the revision of copyright entitled The Charter of Rights For Creators in 1985, and the Conservative Government's response, recommended that this exemption be abolished. How can the Government say that it is not dealing with exemptions and not dealing with fair dealing in this Bill and then move to retain an exemption with regard to fair dealing and abolish the rest of that particular article? It makes no logic or sense.
The other aspect of this is that it is an obsolete clause. It is one that has never been used. The advocacy for its abolition has been constant and continuous. I am not allowed to talk about ephemeral recordings which relate to an act that takes place on a daily basis in this country through broadcasters having to tape in order that they can show the recording at a different hour in another part of the country. This is going to be found to be illegal and they might well have court sanctions. Playing a record outside or on a tape recorder in a discotheque where youths come to be entertained will be kept as an exception that does not have to be paid for. It is so illogical as to blow the mind.
The legislative committee when studying Bill C-60 heard strong advocacy for the abolition of this section from PROCAN and CAPAC. They expressed their absolute astonishment over the retention of this exemption, and stressed that there should be no exceptions to the public performance right for musical works, not even for educational or religious purposes.
In this regard, I think that they have spoken strongly. From my perspective the exemption is totally out of context with what we are dealing with. Here we are talking about a small, fairly insignificant article that no one has asked to be kept. Because it is outside of the parameters of this Bill, users of the service have been refused spontaneous rights in order that our children can have up-to-date information. We would not
Copyright Act
deprive any creator from proper remuneration for their work. But we wish to enable our children to have the latest and most up-to-date information, whether it is by photocopying an article or an editorial from the paper yesterday, and then collecting later and negotiating with the copyright board, or whether the teacher has decided that the issues on free trade, or the issues on apartheid, or what is happening in the Middle East are so current and important that the teacher cannot wait for that information to be listed with the collective in order to negotiate a fair price. The whole approach is ludicrous, and I cannot make head or tail out of the Government's approach.
I would like very much to recommend that Bill C-60 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 39 to 48 at page 14 and lines 1 to 19 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "13. Subsections 50(1) to (10) of the said Act are repealed."
It is inconsistent with the supposed philosophy of the Government. It does not meet with the Government's phase one and phase two which were supposed to come in together in order that we could see the impact after we had dealt with fair dealings and exemptions, and here we keep an exemption. Either we want to deal with exemptions, or we do not want to deal with exemptions. If we are not going to deal with exemptions and fair dealings, then let us take them out. If we are going to allow fair dealings and exemptions, then for goodness' sakes let us at least allow spontaneous work used by teachers and ephemeral recordings used by the CBC in order that the CRTC regulations are met, and a proper tape kept of music so that we can have the finest sound and not ruin the intent of the artist when presented to the public. We are totally inconsistent. It is a poor Bill. It has been badly thought through, and the Minister has been very poorly advised.
1 would call for a movement to accept this particular amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party I am pleased to be able to respond to Motion No. 3. While I seconded the motion put forward by my hon. friend, I must say that I did it to enable us to debate this particular amendment. At this point our plan is to oppose the amendment, and I wish to explain why.
As my hon. friend has indicated, this amendment is designed to repeal an existing exemption. The exemption is commonly known as the "gramophone" or "juke-box" amendment. This exemption frees the users of record players and juke boxes from paying royalties to the owners of the copyright in works that are publicly performed.
If one took the extreme position that, if the exemption is removed as has been proposed, some small users, for example, a corner store owner, who incidentally may be playing the radio during business hours, would technically be in breach of the law. For that reason, we find this to be a peculiar amendment.

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
1 wish to remind Members that the publication entitled The Charter of Rights for Creators, published in October, 1985, contained the following recommendation:
44. The revised law should contain an exception from copyright liability for performances of protected works by means of radios, television sets and playback machines that incidentally take place in public.
The Charter of Rights for Creators acknowledged this problem when it stated:
Clearly it would be an improper extension of copyright law if these
essentially private uses were, even in theory, considered copyright infringements.
While the subcommittee called for the removal of the existing exemption, it also recommended that the revised law should contain an exemption from copyright liability for performances of protected works by means of radios, television sets, and playback machines that incidentally take place in public. I realize that I am reiterating that point to make it clear that it is obvious that this motion ought not to be supported. 1 believe that this is a reasonable approach which, quite frankly, would make the revised law workable.
I would like to suggest to my hon. colleague that exemptions will be considered in phase two of the revision of this Act. During the committee hearings, the Minister made a rather vague commitment that phase two would be addressed in the spring. At that time Members of my Party pressed the Minister to expedite that process. I am optimistic that the need for it is so obvious that at phase two the Minister will bring forward the appropriate initiative.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). The points that have been discussed here today were discussed at length in the legislative committee.
I think it is important to look at proposed Section 50.7 in respect of the totality of the Bill. If it is looked at in that context, Bill C-60 repeals Sections 50.1 to 50.10 of the present Copyright Act which deal with the copyright appeal board. However, proposed Section 50.7 is being reintroduced slightly modified to reflect the wording of the Bill. Proposed Section
50.7	deals with the copyright appeal board's power over the fees, charges, or royalties collectible from the owner of a radio receiving set or gramophone. Basically, proposed subsection
50.7	provides that the board cannot establish fees where there is a public performance by means of any radio receiving set or gramophone in any place other than the theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainment and to which there is an admission charge. Thus proposed subsection 50.7 is an exception, an exception from the payment of copyright royalties.
As I mentioned earlier, the intention of Bill C-60 is to deal with certain issues, as has been mentioned. It does not deal with exceptions. All exceptions will be dealt with together in the next phase of the copyright revision.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this amendment is not appropriate for Bill C-60.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 3 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-60 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out line 34 at page 22
and substituting the following therefor:
"of copyright occurring on or after".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for seconding my motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. May I change the name of the seconder from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), with his consent, to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Sheila Finestone: Clause 24 of the Bill reads:
Subsection 46(1) and section 46.1 of the Copyright Act, as enacted by
section 11, apply in respect of any alleged infringement of copyright occurring
prior to, on or after the day on which section 11 comes into force.
Clause 11 of the Bill amends the section which deals with utilitarian or functional items. They will no longer be considered eligible for copyright protection. The section would have a retroactive effect by virtue of Clause 24.
I do not know what advice the Minister obtained, but I am sure that she, her Government, and her Party would not particularly care to be perceived as stripping businessmen of their acquired right, for the Government is prejudicing its case, or stripping them of a cause of action under existing law. The Minister should have known-and if she did not know, her
February 3, 1988

advisers should have told her-that it is a basic tenet of the law that they cannot retroactively make what was legal illegal. I think this is fundamental to democracy and fundamental to fairness. Attention should be paid to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, probably Section 7. We have already had one surprise, a delightful, well reasoned, and very welcomed decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would hope that we would not have to go that same route in order for businessmen to have justice of the day.
What we have here is a potential for criminal sanctions as well as civil sanctions, starting at $25,000 and running up to $1 million. One could go to jail for six months or up to five years. We are not playing Monopoly-"Go to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200". This is a serious infringement. It is a very serious matter. I just wonder how carefully they looked at the whole issue, because they wanted to do it in two phases.
1 will read into the record the very enlightening remarks of major corporations in the country which appeared before us. They showed us what a very badly conceived Bill it was, how poorly written it was, and how full of errors, both linguistic and content-wise, it was. I started to count the number of changes and found that it was in the hundreds. It was a very sloppily drafted Bill. I cannot say that it was hurried, because they had three years in which they thought about it. I do not think careful thought was given to this section.
My amendment would ensure that we are not prejudicing the cause of businessmen. It becomes prospective, not retroactive, because a cause of action should receive a clear judgment in the courts.
If we really want to be fair in this matter, there will be little damage if the amendment is accepted because there is a limitation on copyright. I do not suggest that 1 am an expert in this field, but I have certainly tried to become informed. What I know is that copyright infringement falls after three years. Therefore, in accepting this amendment we would be protecting those who were in litigation, those who are presently in litigation, and those who just might go to litigation because they are unaware of what is happening with Bill C-60. They might choose to go to litigation over the next three years. We would really be grandfathering the rights of these people under the existing law. The courts should decide and legal counsel should argue. We would pay a very small price so that people in business, those who have worked painstakingly at their designs, will not have unfair competition, pirating of their works, or counterfeiting of their designs.
I urge the Minister to consider this motion very seriously, not to turn it down strictly because it has come from the Opposition. A basic tenet of the law-and this is fundamental to democracy and fairness-should not be subject to retroactivity.
Let me read into the record what the bar associations have said. I think it is vital to know what is the thinking out there. First, Ogilvy, Renault indicates the following:
Copyright Act
The retroactivity-that is created under this clause is without precedent and unconscionable. It is clear under the current law that a cause of action for infringement exists in relation to the copying of a functional article, and in many instances parties have relied on the existing law to commence proceedings. To abolish Clause 11 retroactively will unfairly expose these persons to damages and costs. This clause must be deleted.
Second, Riches indicates:
It is inappropriate for proposed section 46.1 to apply retroactively. Persons have governed their affairs on the basis of the law as it now stands. To change retroactively existing rights and liabilities by means of legislation is objectionable. Proposed subsections 46(2) and (3) are not subject to retroactive application; nor should proposed section 46.1.
Further to that, Balmer indicates:
Clause 11 should not operate retrospectively so as to deprive copyright holders of claims to copyright which existed prior to the Bill's coming into force.
The last one is from Cassels, and I should like to read it into the record to show the Government how unfairly and inappropriately it is treating businessmen. It reads:
Our clients, 554072 Ontario Inc. and Wheel Tronic Inc., commenced an action for copyright infringement in 1985 against the defendants who through a process of "reverse engineering" copied our clients' unique design for an automotive hoist and jack beam. If Clause 24 is adopted, our clients may be deprived of the cause of action which they have been pursuing at great expense, both in terms of money and time, for the past two and one half years.
It is now three years. It continues:
On their behalf, we urge that Clause 11 be made prospective only, or, alternatively, that a provision be added to avoid the prejudice which would otherwise be caused to our clients and to others who may be involved in similar proceedings.
1 suggest that under the Charter of Rights this is illegal. It will make money for lawyers and result in misery and costs for businessmen. It is not consistent with the philosophy of law, and I think that the Minister should withdraw it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to Motion No. 4. I do not know whether I seconded the motion in the end, but certainly it was my intention because I support the motion very enthusiastically on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
As the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) indicated, this amendment is designed to remove the retroactivity clause. I cannot imagine a Member of this House who would support a retroactivity clause. I remember debates vividly especially when the National Energy Program was introduced which had an element of retroactivity. I recall day after day, nay, week after week, when Members would be rising indicating how abhorrent this type of an initiative was and how, as Members of Parliament, we ought not to be introducing retroactive legislation. We certainly supported that notion in many respects.
When a firm, a business, a corporation or an individual makes plans and commits itself financially, not only in capital but in human resources, to carry out a particular plan, be it a business plan or some other type of plan, so much depends

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
upon their ability to carry that out step by step. When Bill C-60 was being considered actively by the legislative committee, various companies made it very clear that retroactivity would cause them very serious problems. The problematic nature of the retroactivity clause was something that they brought to our attention because of the very negative impact that would accrue to them and on the enterprises they represented.
There is another side to this matter worth sharing, namely, the legal opinion. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have always been concerned about the legality of various pieces of legislation to ensure that they not only follow the spirit of the law but the law itself. I want to say that the retroactivity of Clause 11 created under this clause is without precedent and is certainly highly unconscionable. It is clear under current law that a cause of action for infringement exists in relation to the copying of a functional article and, in many instances, parties have relied on the existing law to commence proceedings. To abolish Clause 11 retroactively will unfairly expose those persons to damages and to costs. Therefore, 1 believe this clause ought to be deleted.
I might add that I believe it is inappropriate for proposed Section 46(1) to apply retroactively. Persons have governed their affairs on the basis of the law as it now stands. The point I was attempting to make earlier and to change retroactively existing rights and liabilities by means of legislation is something that I think most people would find to be objectionable. Proposed subsections 26(2) and 26(3) are not subject to retroactive application, nor should proposed Section 46(1).
Clause 11 should not operate retroactively so as to deprive copyright holders of claims to copyright which existed prior to this Bill coming into force.
It is also useful to point out that as currently worded this clause does not refer to Section 46(2). 1 think that is something you would have noted in your examination. There is no reference to Section 46(2), Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we are in total support of this exclusion. In no event should Section 46(2) be made retroactive as this could possibly affect certain ongoing litigation.
What I have said is perfectly obvious in terms of what must be done and what must not be done. Therefore, on behalf of my Party, may I say that we plan to support this amendment.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make the industrial design section in Bill C-60 apply only in the future and not retroactively.
Until two or three years ago no one thought copyright extended to purely functional articles, such as tailpipes. But court cases decided that copyright could apply to functional articles. This created a legal authority for other court cases which argued that copyright was being infringed by copying purely functional articles, like the hull of a boat. This legal result was never intended.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Bar Association agreed that copyright should not extend to functional articles like boats and tailpipes. Bill C-60 reflects this view. Bill C-60 says that copyright does not and never did extend to functional articles. Bill C-60 clarifies the law not only for the future but also for the past. Copyright was never intended and did not apply to functional articles.
Bill C-60 sets out the division between what is protected by copyright and what is protected by industrial design. One of the ways this is done is by providing that copyright never did apply to purely functional articles. This is what Clause 24 says. If Clause 24 is amended as suggested by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) then Bill C-60 would say that in future copyright will not apply to functional articles. However, the state of the law before Bill C-60 will be based on the recent court cases which extended copyright to functional articles, and that is a result which was never intended.
To avoid this unintended result, Clause 24 of Bill C-60 states what the law was always intended to say, that copyright does not extend to purely functional articles. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Motion No. 4 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Concerning the Speaker's ruling, may I read into the record exactly what has happened here.
Motion Nos. 5 and 6 are somewhat similar. A motion exactly the same as Motion No. 6 was moved, debated and voted on in the negative in committee. Thus Motion No. 6 will not be selected. Motion No. 5, while similar, is varied enough
February 3, 1988

for the Chair to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. Thus Motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding, immediately after line 46 at page 22, the following:
"26. (1) Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every three-year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including the effect of such provisions, shall be undertaken by such joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, as may be designated or established for that purpose.
(2) Within six months after the completion of the review referred to in subsection (1), the joint committee so designated or established for that purpose shall submit a report to Parliament on its findings, including any changes the committee would recommend."
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is really a sad day when we are looking at a very serious Bill which obviously has not captivated the enthusiastic understanding or involvement of many Members of this House. Quite rightly so because it is an extraordinarily complex Bill. It is one that I found difficult to work with and I think most Members were not exactly enthralled with the many, many hundreds of hours that we spent trying to find some rational and fair answers that would meet the needs of the users as well as the creators.
In trying to arrive at some kind of fairness in our system and in trying to accord economic rights, which are due to the creators, we have embarked on some new and exciting undertakings. From the time of the White Paper, which was called From Gutenberg to Telidon, through to the study undertaken in 1985, which resulted in The Charter of Rights for Creators, that balance, that tenuous balance between the user and the creator resulted in the initiation of some very new and avant garde ideas to improve the economic opportunities of the creators to revamp this very old Bill, a Bill designed for other uses. In so doing, we must be able to ensure that all this innovation that is being brought in in a patchwork way between phases one and two of the Bill is reviewed. It is in that light that I wish to include a sunset clause in Bill C-60. We would then be in a position to review legislation that has been highly controversial. If we review the legislation in five years, we will have had five years of experience with a variety of its clauses. We would be able to assess the impact of public exhibition rights on curators.
To our knowledge, no other country has public exhibition rights. I think they might be exciting but might create serious problems. I would like to have that assessed and I would like to assess the efficiency of the new thrust. 1 would like to be able to assess the potential problems which might arise as a result of the fair dealings or exemptions which we still have not seen and will come forward in phase two in which I hope a similar provision will be included.
Copyright Act
How can we assess what is happening with collectives if they have not yet been implemented? Many of the provincial Governments have serious reservations about these collectives. The Minister received a letter from the Minister of Culture and Communications of Ontario who expressed some of her serious reservations, as have two other provincial Ministers. Collectives and negotiations are not in place yet and there are serious concerns as to how this will actually operate.
How will we know if, under its newly constituted mandate, a copyright board is large enough to meet the demands and will be efficient and able to fulfil its mandate under the law? As collectives are a fairly new concept, particularly in some areas of jurisdiction, will the board be able to work effectively with the collectives? Will negotiations be undertaken in a way that will meet the goals of this Bill?
All Hon. Members, and certainly the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) should be well aware that technology requires upgrading. We do not want to leave this Bill alone for another 60 years. We want to be able to ensure that the Bill is working in balance with the interests of the curators and the users, not just to the benefit of the legal profession, causing it to create unnecessary legislation and tie-ups in the courts.
The Minister of Culture and Communications of Ontario, Lily Munro, wrote the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) about Bill C-60. She indicates in a letter that her colleagues and she are carefully reviewing the proposals and would want to provide some comments in the future. Referring to the public exhibition rights, she said in the third paragraph of her letter, the following:
-we feel that the possible implications of this amendment have not been fully assessed and may be too far reaching. Art galleries and museums not only have a role in providing public access to creative works but also, in many cases, have educational objectives to which they must adhere.
Interpretation of collections is an essential part of the curatorial responsibility of such institutions and provides an educational experience for the viewer, particularly in a historical context. The introduction of an exhibition right as stated in Bill C-60, would alter this historically established balance between creators and the institution.
She went on to say:
I am very supportive of initiatives that improve the economic situation of artists and I believe that galleries and museums in Ontario share this objective.
Certainly we heard that they did so throughout the course of our hearings. She went on:
The exhibition right as currently drafted may act, however, as a disincentive not only to museums and galleries, but also to corporations and other individuals to purchase, lend or donate contemporary art.
The Minister went on to say:
-there has not been sufficient analysis and discussion among the affected parties to clarify the real intention of this section and the practical implementation of those intentions.
She concluded by saying:
I strongly recommend that the addition of an "exhibition right" be reserved pending much fuller investigation and consultation on the issues, options and

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
effects it may have on indigenous contemporary art and the public exhibition community. 1 urge you to review this amendment-
There seems to be much glasnost between the federal and provincial Governments. We are all so happy and Meech Lake is a marvellous undertaking. Everyone is cosy and lovey-dovey. If everyone is so happy, then the Minister should have taken into consideration the need for much more careful and considered communications and consultations before bringing in a brand new right of this kind. She should also have assured herself that mechanisms were in place for the collectives and were ready to roll. Neither of these things was done.
I would like to bring one last point to the attention of the House. The Minister, in answering my concerns, told me that we could not bind future Parliaments. When I introduced a similar amendment, the Minister answered, I suppose because she was not well informed, in the the following way:
Could I just perhaps comment before Mrs. Finestone leaves. The difficulty that I think anyone would have with this particular proposal, even though I agree wholeheartedly with the need to be able to force governments to move on issues like this, is it really is not acceptable for one Parliament to try to bind another Parliament.
I went on to advise the Minister that we had done so in other instances. The Minister then said:
The Parliament, regardless of the government-but for one Parliament to try to say this is what you must do . .. Now there may be ways that we can see that reviews are carried out, but it is not feasible to do that, and that is why-
I interrupted and brought to her attention that she herself had brought an amendment like this before the House and that there were two other instances of it in the last couple of years. One such instance was the access to information legislation and the other was under a workplace hazardous materials information Act.
I would like to remind the Minister that when she was the Minister of Employment and Immigration and brought Bill C-62 before the House, she moved the adoption of a very similar amendment. In that Bill, she wanted the following clause adopted:
Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every three-year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including the effect of such provisions, shall be undertaken by such joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, as may be designated or established for that purpose.
(2) Within six months after the completion of the review referred to in subsection (1), the joint committee so designated or established for that purpose shall submit a report to Parliament on its findings, including any changes the committee would recommend."
I did not even think of putting in my motion the part about a review at the end of every three-year period thereafter. I suppose when the Minister responded to me in committee and caused the rejection of this proposal, she forgot that she had done it herself. She forgot that her colleagues had done it in two other Bills. 1 would like to remind the Hon. Minister and her advisers that they did do this and suggest that they accept this amendment. I believe the sunset clause is well suited to this particular Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having a chance to make some comments following those of my hon. friend, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who has once again presented a most convincing case for the introduction of a sunset clause into the process as a result of Motion No. 5. The New Democratic Party will be supporting this initiative. I think it is very appropriate.
The Member has made the case that incorporating a sunset clause into the legislation is not a new idea. A number of precedents for this exist. I recall that with regard to the Access to Information Act the feeling was that a regular review would be appropriate to ensure that Members of Parliament and the public have access to appropriate information in order to keep the Government on the straight and narrow.
The Member for Mount Royal indicated as well that the workplace hazardous materials information Act has a built in review process as does the employment equity Bill and the very famous Bank Act. There are other cases in which a regular review is considered to be not only appropriate but absolutely necessary. This has become necessary largely due to the technological changes which are occurring in so many fields today, particularly in the arts, which require a periodic review of this type of copyright legislation. The sunset clause allows for that.
If we want meaningful and responsive copyright legislation the need for periodic review becomes obvious. We do not want to have the previous situation repeated. In the past, present members of the Government called for changes to the Copyright Act time after time and the Government of the day kept dragging its feet. Nevertheless, wc have today made a whole set of extremely complex changes.
1 must admit that I do not understand the implications of them all. I have studied them adequately to be aware of most of them, but it is an extremely complex area with dramatic changes taking place in technology, production, and marketing. It is, therefore, very appropriate that we are now revising this copyright legislation. It has been nearly 60 years since this legislation has received the examination which it has during the last number of months. This review was certainly long overdue.
The Keyes-Brunet report of 1977 recommended that provision be made for the periodic revision of copyright law. It may be useful to remind Members of one of the critical recommendations of that report. The title of that report was Copyright in Canada: Proposals for Revision of the Law. It made four recommendations, the first being:
That continuous evaluation be maintained of the impact of existing and
emerging intellectual property systems.
The need for that recommendation is perfectly clear. The second recommendation was:
That provision be made for a means to conduct and maintain a continuing
review and study of copyright law and practice, and of technological and other
February 3, 1988

developments in the field, with a view to encouraging the initiation and
development of policy recommendations.
This seminal report on the need to change the Copyright Act pointed out the necessity for an ongoing periodic review of any legislation dealing with copyright. The third recommendation was:
That provision be made for the periodic revision of copyright law.
That is straightforward enough. The fourth recommendation was:
That a mechanism be provided to initiate and conduct regular liaison,
consultation and discussion with private and public copyright interests in
Canada, and with foreign copyright offices and international organizations.
It is most important that in addition to a review process being automatically triggered as a result of the sunset clause appropriate extensive and intensive consultations take place with all organizations interested and involved in a direct way in copyright legislation, whether they be users or creators. We support this, Mr. Speaker.
The past Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications, who is from Edmonton, expressed sympathy for the notion of sunset clauses during the legislative hearings. He said "Philosophically I rather favour sunsets". I suppose that he was not necessarily referring to Alberta sunsets which are, of course, magnificent, but to sunset clauses. That was the context of his comment.
With regard to identifying critical persons who have indicated their support for sunset clauses, as the Member for Mount Royal so adequately pointed out, the Minister herself indicated some time ago the need for a periodic review. This motion now makes that possible.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will likely be standing in a moment to express his views on Motion No. 5. I would like to put a query to him to which he may respond when he gets to his feet. I am sure that he has, as have most of us, received letters and visits from constituents, most of whom tend to be teachers, students, and librarians, who express concerns about various aspects of this copyright legislation.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Clinch) will use this opportunity to clarify what this means to those people in the learning and instructional fields who occasionally make use of copyright material to assist in demonstrating various points. If the Parliamentary Secretary would explain this, it would alleviate a lot of the concerns which I know from previous discussions are unnecessary and would enable Members to send to those making inquiries the actual words of the Hon. Member on this issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that considerable progress is being made on report stage of Bill C-60. I would like to reiterate what I said in the House yesterday. There was a House order which calls for a recorded division on the Government's response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-84 at 6 p.m. this evening.
Copyright Act
I went on to say, although it was not part of the House order, that in the event that report stage of Bill C-60-and I would add now any other proceedings on Bill C-60-were to be completed today, any division could be deferred until 6 p.m. and it would be the intention of the Government to suspend the sitting until six o'clock at which time the bells could ring for 15 minutes for the vote.
I just wanted to reassure the House that it is still the Government's intention, if Bill C-60 goes smoothly as I understand it is, to suspend the sitting immediately, and a recorded division on whatever stage of Bill C-60 is reached would be taken at six o'clock.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We would be quite amenable to that suggestion in the usual spirit of co-operation of the Official Opposition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are making the progress which we are on report stage of Bill C-60 and I am anxious to move on to third reading and try to finish that today if at all possible.
If we were to complete deliberations on Bill C-60 prior to the time for the vote on Bill C-84, is there any reason why, rather than having an interval, we could not call the vote at the end of the deliberations?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Hon. Members of the House will have arranged their day around a 6 p.m. vote. I would be loath, having given notice of a 6 p.m. vote, to move it forward. I would not consent to that because we have given Hon. Members notice that the vote would be at six. I would prefer not to tamper with that previous notice.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, while I was not prepared to respond to the request of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) with regard to questions from teachers and librarians, I would be more than willing to give a personal view of that in my position as a former teacher and member of the teaching community in Bathurst, New Brunswick for many years. I am sure there are many teachers and librarians there who are interested in the effects of the Bill.
The clauses in Motions Nos. 5 and 6 require mandatory review of legislation. Such clauses have been referred to as sunset clauses by members of the Opposition. Their inclusion suggest that some difficulties or unforeseen consequences are anticipated in the operation of a new piece of legislation. The purpose of a sunset clause is to guarantee a forum in which a public review must take place periodically.
In legislative committee, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) proposed a sunset clause for Bill C-60, stating that the new Hazardous Products Act and the Access to Information Act contained such clauses and that they set precedents for introducing one in the Copyright Act.

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
I suggest that each statute must be examined on its own merit. The provision of a statute in one case cannot be looked at in isolation. It must be examined within the context of the entire Act.
Take, for example, the new Flazardous Products Act, which comes into force in October of this year.
The Act provides for mandatory review two years after the coming into force of its Section 12, which refers to certain hazardous products, explosives, atomic materials, hazardous wastes and tobacco products.
Because of a feeling of urgency, the Bill was passed eight days after its introduction on June 22, 1987. Not all hazardous products were included or adequately defined. For example, the term "hazardous wastes" is not defined consistently in different statutes which deal with them.
It is clear that in this case the function of the review clause is not really to review the Bill but to complete it. This is not the case for the new copyright legislation. It will be completed in phase two, making a review clause unnecessary.
Another example of a sunset clause is in the Access to Information Act. Section 75 of the Act provides for its review within three years of its coming into force. This was introduced for a basic reason; access to information is a new concept, quite different from other statutes.
The first review of that Act took place last year. In its report, the committee suggested another review. The committee's report stated that a major reason for scheduling another review is that it is relatively new legislation. The report states that there has not been enough experience yet in a number of areas to determine satisfactorily whether both the structure and the provisions of the Act are adequate.
This is not the case with copyright legislation. Copyright legislation is not new, either on the domestic or on the international scene. The present law has been in force for 64 years, since 1924. Indeed, most countries in the world now have copyright legislation. There are two international copyright conventions to which most countries in the world belong. Many studies have preceded the preparation of the new Canadian copyright law, and international precedent was taken into full consideration.
Let me respond to the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap with regard to copyright in the teaching profession. In my opinion, the present copyright law, which has been in effect since 1924 prevents most of that which may happen in a classroom where teachers utilize materials and copy them without receiving permission. This law proposes to allow the creators and writers to receive some remuneration for their works. No one in the teaching profession disagrees with that.
There are two ways for this to work practically. One is to use the collective system, which is very familiar to Members from Quebec where that system is now in place. Assuming that we are talking about education, the department of education of
a province would belong to a collective and any artist or creator who belongs to that collective would be listed with the department. The department of education would pay a fee in order that anyone in the classroom could use the works of those artists or creators.
The other alternative in the discussion of exemptions or exceptions to the Copyright Act is to deal with these exceptions, and they will be dealt with in phase two of the Bill. Those groups who have expressed a concern are asking to be considered in the exceptions or exemptions to the Copyright Act. Those are the possibilities with respect to the practical implementation of the Bill. I hope I have answered my hon. friend's question adequately, as well as that of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 5 in the name of my distinguished colleague, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I want to congratulate her for her participation in this issue and for the immense contribution she has made to the debate.
This motion which she has proposed is not only in order but quite logical. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated to us that one of the rationales for a sunset clause is to take into account legislation that is brand new, innovative or unprecedented.
The Hon. Member said that the copyright legislation does not fit into that category. I disagree with him. It is quite true that we have had copyright legislation in this country for a long time, but we should remember that it has not been reviewed for many years. Therefore, any new legislation introduced is a brand new concept.
Second, there are portions of the Bill which are clearly unprecedented not only in this country but everywhere that I can imagine. For example, the issue of exhibition rights is a brand new concept. I understand that it does not exist in the United States and has not existed here.
I know that my colleague from Mount Royal has expressed reservations about this particular clause because we simply do not know what will happen in a few years' time. Therefore, why not have a sunset clause by which we can review the exhibition rights and other pertinent issues that did not exist before the introduction of Bill C-60?
It is not only the Official Opposition that expresses this view. The Minister of Culture and Communications for Ontario, Lily Munro, stated in a letter dated December 11, 1987:
After consultation with many of the groups that would be affected by the introduction of an exhibition right, we feel that the possible implications of this amendment have not been fully assessed and may be too far reaching. Art galleries and museums not only have a role in providing public access to creative works but also, in many cases, have educational objectives to which they must adhere.
Interpretation of collections is an essential part of the curatorial responsibility of such institutions and provides an educational experience for the viewer, particularly in a historical context. The introduction of an exhibition right as
February 3, 1988

stated in Bill C-60, would alter this historically established balance between creators and the institution.
Of course, there is the whole issue of whether there would be a reluctance on the part of certain potential acquirers of art to obtain a particular piece of art if they knew, for instance, that the exhibition rights were not relinquished at the time of purchase. We do not know the answer to all these questions, and they are very important. That is why the suggestion made by the Hon. Member to include a sunset clause in this Bill is indeed quite appropriate.
There is also the question of the exhibition rights in the Bill as they pertain to another issue which is very close and dear to the hearts of certain Conservative Members of Parliament. That is the issue-and it is not my issue, I must say-of the so-called property rights that Conservatives like to bring to our attention every now and then, the firm belief of some Members of this House that once you purchase property it is yours and that is the end of it. I refer, for instance, to the debates of the House of Commons on October 15, 1987, in which the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) spoke. He talked about the lack of property rights as a regrettable omission and that the principle of freedom to pursue the gaining of a livelihood with respect to the Charter is diminished if one's freedom to simply keep, sell or buy is not secure. He said: "All this is simple common sense". How could the Hon. Member for Kitchener accept that this new concept of exhibition rights would be in legislation without a review process so that he could assure himself that there is no interference with that sacred principle he feels is so important, namely, the acquisition of property rights for Canadians?
Those are all very important issues to Conservative backbenchers who are bent upon this property rights thing, for Members of Parliament generally, and even for our provincial Governments. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is paying close attention to my remarks as I look across the floor. I know he will want to respond to this question in a very positive manner.
On December 4, 1987, with respect to the property rights issue which is so important to some Conservative Members-and I am sure because of this they will want to support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal-the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) stated at page 11514 of Hansard:
Ownership is conducive to an individual's independence, freedom, and happiness. A man's house is his castle. However, what happens when he does not have the right to own that castle? From earliest times property has been defended. Aristotle expressed a strong defence of property and advanced the idea that private property is ordained by natural law and that ownership is conducive to progress.
According to this famous philosopher, ownership of property promotes the growth of character because two important virtues result from it-self control and liberty.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that not only opposition Members have concerns about the Bill. Indeed, Conservative
Copyright Act
Members have expressed the point that it is important to have a review mechanism such as the one offered to us by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties. We are now about to complete report stage and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to move to third reading stage of this particular Bill. The critic for the New Democratic Party is unfortunately absent as a result of other duties, and rather than stop the proceedings now from continuing, I am sure you will find unanimous consent to allow the Member speaking on behalf of the Government to introduce the speech at third reading stage, followed by the critic for the Liberal Party. After the completion of her remarks, the proceedings will stop at that point and, if necessary, be terminated until the vote, with the understanding that third reading will continue some other day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Carney (for the Minister of Communications) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pat Carney: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at third reading of this Bill, and its

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
amendments. 1 am very dissatisfied that two of my amendments did not receive Government understanding, which I think is highly regrettable in the present circumstances. 1 think the Government will rue the day it caused business people very serious financial loss. However, that is the Government's problem, not ours.
Copyright law is the legal expression of the rights granted to a creator to protect his or her work against a variety of unauthorized uses. That protection arises when a work is created by our artists and provides the legal foundation for the publishing, broadcasting, film, sound recording and other copyright based industries. Essentially, copyright law sets the rules under which market forces determine what music is heard, what records are made, what films are seen, what books are published and what programs are viewed on television, all here in Canada. Copyright law dates back to 1832 in a statute of the Legislature of Lower Canada. The British North America Act of 1867 placed exclusive jurisdiction concerning copyright with the federal Government. Several Acts were subsequently passed, culminating in the present 1924 Act which repealed all prior legislation-and, please note, all prior legislation. It did not do a patchwork job.
The 1924 Act provides that no person is entitled to copyright, or any similar right in respect of protected material except in accordance with the Act. It should be noted that this 1924 legislation was written during a period when there were no television sets. Can any Members remember when there were no television sets, no tape recorders, no VCRs and, Mr. Speaker, when adding machines were considered computers? As a result of these technological changes, copyright has changed considerably from being only the right to copy. Today works acquire value not only by means of reproduction of copies but through public performance and broadcasting.
Copyright law attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of creators in exploiting their works and of the public interest in having access to those works. These things enrich our lives in many ways. Therefore the law grants creators important moral and economic rights.
The law also recognizes uses of works that are permitted without the authorization of the creator or the payment of royalties. Therefore copyright must concern itself with first providing creators' rights and then with the limiting of those rights. 1 would suggest that the quality of our cultural rights is dependent upon copyright. The subcommittee which looked at the revision of copyright in 1985 was told:
The quality of cultural life depends upon a country's intellectual and artistic creations and, to some extent, is a reflection of the encouragement and protection provided to creators. Copyright legislation can be regarded as a means of encouraging creative and intellectual activity in providing adequate protection to creators, entrepreneurs, and the cultural industries, in the creation, development and exploitation of the products of creativity, and the arts in general.
I do not know of anyone in the House who would debate that point. However, I do not believe that it is the saviour of our cultural life to the extent that the Government would like Canadians and our creators to believe. The Government needs to take another concrete measure to provide for these creators. It requires the collective will of a number of different Ministers around the cabinet table. It takes directing the Ministers to be responsive to the needs of creators who enrich our lives and define us as Canadians, particularly in the following areas.
I refer to the definition of professional artist or professional artistic activity in the Income Tax Act; the erosion of Interpretation Bulletin IT-504; the establishment of a charitable or similar registered tax status of arts service organizations; specific aspects of the capital cost allowance deduction for the cost of musical instruments; and erosion of the capital cost allowance for investment in certified Canadian films. These are the kinds of additional measures that we need to ensure artistic creativity as an economic right in Canada.
Since the 1924 Copyright Act was passed there have been amendments. But, this is the first time that substantial revision has taken place. Every time the topic of copyright is opened up, a bell sounds and sides seem to be drawn. The Government thought that it had arrived at the perfect solution of having the copyright revision passed by introducing the amendments in two phases.
On May 28, the Government introduced this Bill, Bill C-60, supposedly the non-controversial part. It was to be the part that would be easy, acceptable and have an easy run through the House. Initially, the Bill received positive acclaim. I ask Hon. Members to remember the headlines. They read: "New Changes Would Give Copyright Laws More Teeth"; "Canada's Beefing Up Its Copyright and Royalty laws"; "Copyright Changes Applauded;" and "Copyright Bill-Good First Step". There certainly had been enough consultation. I refer to the White Paper entitled Gutenberg to Telidon; the 1985 subcommittee report entitled The Charter of Rights for Creators', and the 1986 Government response.
However, when Bill C-60 in its legislative form received second reading in this Chamber in June some minor technical changes were suggested, but that was all. It then went off to a legislative committee for hearings and quick passage into law. It was even suggested by government Members and my colleague from the New Democratic Party that hearings would not be necessary since all the issues had been covered.
Then came the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer. Creators, users and copyright lawyers, instead of lolling on the beach or swimming, had to look much more closely at this Bill, for it is a very complex law. There is a great deal of legal jurisprudence through court decisions which had to be taken into consideration. They examined not only the changes in the Bill clause by clause, line by line, but word by word. They began writing letters and briefs, making phone calls and requesting meetings with Members to express their very serious concerns. They made constructive criticisms for improvement.
February 3, 1988

Letters and briefs to my office alone must have been very close to 300. Never before on a piece of legislation have I had to deal with such concerned feedback. It is feedback for which we should all be very grateful.
By October, when the legislative committee began its hearings, witnesses came before us. Some came with briefs requesting as many as 50 amendments. We were told by one witness that there were 75 places where there appeared to be differences from the drafting of the English and the French texts. It was sloppy work.
The Canadian Bar Association and the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada appeared before us with a delegation of 12 lawyers and a 50-page brief. Some 50 concerns were examined. Their efforts represented the work of thousands of person hours. I was trying to calculate the amount of dollars that represented, but I gave up. This work was of tremendous value to the Minister, the Ministry, to the Opposition Parties, the people of Canada and to the whole legislative process. The comments presented by many of the witnesses and through the briefs were contradictory nonetheless. There was great division of opinion. As a matter of fact, it made for a very difficult hearing session.
During those hearings I began to wonder if the committee should not send the Bill back for a complete redrafting. However, I was convinced and hopeful that we would find the kinds of changes that would make this a fair, even and balanced Bill.
We were of the view that, through amendments, the concerns could be addressed. Thus we pressed and we did get substantial amendments made to Bill C-60. We should all be aware that that did take place. For that reason I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who took the time to write letters and briefs, to phone and to appear as witnesses before the committee, answering countless questions, writing back, meeting with the Minister and both the Ministries of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Communications.
These people were very patient. All of us are indebted to them. I am also indebted personally, as I think the committee as a whole is, to the Library of Parliament staff whose members spent so many hours combing through the submissions to provide us with up-to-date analyses of the briefs, as well as preparing a comparative study of copyright laws in other countries, which proved very useful. It did not change the Minister's mind, but it was certainly a very useful exercise.
It was originally thought that this Bill would be the ideal solution and that copyright being divided into these two phases would be fine. We have now learned that there will probably be three phases.
Bill C-60 has been properly described as a creators' Bill, which has caused unease among the consumers of copyright such as libraries, schools and broadcasters, just to name a few. They had the right to express their points of view. They had the right to get together and to send in thousands of letters to
Copyright Act
all the Members of the House. I do not think that they should be criticized. They should be complimented for undertaking concrete concerned action in the interests of their constituencies. It was our responsibility to respond to those concerns, not to criticize them, as was done in a number of instances.
They have been told repeatedly that the exemptions will be in the next phase, which was their major area of concern. They want to know when the second phase will be. Will it be next week, next month or next year? The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) introduced this Bill on May 27. She said that the second phase would follow quickly in the fall. In December she said, "Come this spring". The spring has almost sprung and the grass has almost ris' and we still do not have hide nor hair of this Bill. The uncertainty causes concern and fear for the users. The representations brought me to the conclusion that the rights of users are inseparable from creators' rights. Many of their concerns are legitimate, for there is a lack of clarity and bridging has not been put into place. They are not sure about what they are going to find when the next part of this Bill comes in.
Copyright protection must be sufficient to stimulate and promote cultural and intellectual creation in Canada. The Social Science Federation pointed out in its brief "This cannot be achieved if the law fails to recognize the interests of cultural consumers who are equally vital to our cultural industries".
A real risk exists that new and powerful rights will be entrenched, and are being entrenched, without offsetting recognition and protection of legitimate concerns of the users of copyright material. After all, one would not buy a house without seeing all the rooms. Therefore, how would one expect users to be happy, satisfied, and support this legislation without seeing all the provisions? The Government has created unnecessary and undue concern which could have been avoided by having dealt with total revisions, or having released the second phase as draft legislation for both the users and the creators to be able to see the total picture.
The Communications Minister should have heeded the words of her colleague, or ex-colleague, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who stated:
Copyright first of all protects creators, but consumers of their works are equally affected in their day-to-day life by the Copyright Act. Our legislation must ensure a balance between the interests of the copyright owner and the user.
I wish to address the education aspect, because we did hear from a large number of educators. There was much discussion during the legislative committee hearings on reprographic rights. The term "reprography" refers to the reproduction of a work specifically by photocopying. In today's society, we all take this act pretty much for granted.
Bill C-60 makes no substantive changes to the existing law insofar as photocopying practices are concerned. In the 1924

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
Copyright Act, under Section 3(1), the copyright owner has the sole right to reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever. Accordingly, unless the reproduction is authorized by the creator or the copyright holder, and unless it is insubstantial or excused on the basis of any of the statutory exemptions under the current Act, the reproductions of a work by photocopying will be deemed to constitute a copyright infringement.
As for existing statutory exemptions that apply to photocopying practices, there are limited exemptions under Section 17(2)(h) of the 1924 Act for the reproduction of certain categories of protected works for their deposit under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. It is too bad that we did not see fit to do that for the CRTC regulatory Act.
More important, there is the fair dealing limitation under Section 17(2)(a) which, by excusing "any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary;" may exonerate those who make photocopies, who are generally students, researchers, and many of us here in the House of Commons. They are exempted provided that they qualify under this limitation.
When the Canadian Teachers Federation representatives appeared before the legislative committee, they stated that they wanted the right to use material "spontaneously" in order to capture "the teachable moment". By this they meant the right to use new, timely, newsworthy copyrighted materials in a reasonable manner without the consent of the author. It would take too long and it would no longer be timely or of the moment. This, they define as "fair use". 1 think that that is fair play. This concept was accepted and incorporated in the 1976 revision of the United States copyright law. The American law provides recognition that fair use includes teaching, including multiple copies for classroom use; and a valid consideration as to "the purpose and character of the use".
For Canadian teachers the making of multiple copies, and particularly of current magazine articles, poems selected from books, and newspaper articles, has become a nearly entrenched practice. We were told by school boards that this situation has become even more important for teachers because of the cutbacks in educational funding that have occurred throughout Canada.
The educational community does not take the position that creators should not be recognized for the important contributions that they make in the creation of cultural works, and that creators are entitled to a reasonable return by way of royalties. There is no argument about that, and that is not the issue. Educators are concerned about having access to current materials when teaching such current topics as Meech Lake or free trade, materials that have not yet found their way into collectives; or that access to copyrighted materials will not be hamstrung in administrative procedures; and that costs will not be overbearing, making materials inaccessible.
Under Bill C-60, a legal foundation for the formation of "licensing bodies" has been established. Under licence
agreements negotiated on behalf of their members, the copyright owners, those organizations or collectives will be in a position to authorize the users to exercise the rights reserved exclusively to the copyright owners under the Act, such as the reproduction rights, thus providing the means by which otherwise infringing acts of photocopying can be legitimized.
In the background materials provided with Bill C-60, the Government uses the example of how collectives, creators, and schools operate in Quebec.

It is my "belle province", and I think it has shown real leadership in this respect.

In that province, the Quebec Ministry of Education signed agreements with I'Union des ecrivains du Quebec and the Society for the Advancement of Rights in Audiovisuals. Under those agreements, this enlightened procedure allows access to exactly the type of spontaneously used materials that we are referring to. The schools of Quebec have an immediate access repertory of literary and audio-visual works in exchange for $1.5 million a year which is negotiated with the Ministry of Education. As a result, creators are receiving payment while users have the immediate access that they need.
I would suggest that the Quebec example works well, and it is what the Government envisioned happening in the rest of the country. But it would appear that the Government failed in encouraging the relationship between the province and the collectives. As a result, educators and their students might well be the losers. I do not think that we want that. I am told that the provincial education ministries do not wish to proceed until they know what the exemptions are. Therefore, we are in a hang-up, not understanding the conundrum as to what this Bill really means. Teachers are worried, because teachers like to obey the laws of this land.
Bill C-60 does not assure that collectives will become a reality, nor does it mention the existence of "blanket licences". Quite to the contrary, it provides for individual bargaining between the user and the collective with only the limited jurisdiction of the copyright board.
It was out of those concerns that I proposed at report stage on Bill C-60 that the copyright board be able to make regulations governing "the spontaneous use for non-profit instructional purposes of works not included in a licensed repertoire". I included it in a section where they would be forced to consult with the Governor in Council in order that there would be no contradiction and we would be able to bridge phase one and phase two and make teachers comfortable that they were within the parameters of the law.
This amendment, if it had been accepted, would have allowed owners of copyright materials to rely on their rights to obtain compensation for the use of their works. It would have provided a mechanism for the resolution of disputes on the spontaneous use of copyright works. The copyright board, with
February 3, 1988

this amendment in place, would have had the authority that it needed, together with Governor in Council advice, to regulate the terms and conditions of spontaneous use and to fix any royalties associated with this use. The amendment would have referred to the board only those disputes pertaining to the use of material not included in the repertoire of the collectives.
I wish to look at broadcasters concerns. During the committee study of Bill C-60 we heard from broadcasters. They expressed concern that the area of ephemeral recordings had not been addressed by the Government. For the information of the House, an "ephemeral" recording refers to the practice of broadcasters of recording copyright material prior to transmission. It is an ongoing practice of all broadcasters, whether it is in the public or in the private sector. We are told that it is done for technical reasons. The recordings are often disposed of after being broadcast. Material is recorded because there is frequently a lag between the time that the program is produced and broadcast. Prerecordings allow broadcast at the desired date, time, and schedule. In a country with six time zones, it is necessary to meet time zone needs in various parts of the country. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they cannot exactly pull in an orchestra and do a live recording. They must have the right to record it and then rebroadcast it. The prerecording procedure allows networks to service various regions on a variable time schedule, which is normal practice.
It should be noted that the right to make an ephemeral recording does not itself create a right to broadcast the work that is recorded. It would still be necessary to obtain the authorization of the copyright owner to rebroadcast the work regardless of how long the ephemeral recording would be kept.
The current 1924 Copyright Act is totally silent on this exemption to allow such recordings in order to perform music which is already licensed by CAPAC and by PROCAN. Radio and TV broadcasters have been making convenience tapes for decades.
What will be the result for broadcasters of the Government ignoring the issue and not accepting my amendment? There are potential fines from $25,000 to $1 million, imprisonment for six months to five years, or both fines and imprisonment. The crime is the act of taping, without negotiating a mechanical fee with the publisher, music which they have been licensed to broadcast by CAPAC and PROCAN.
To add insult to injury, the situation only exists in Canada. It does not exist in the United States, Australia, or the United Kingdom. In their Copyright Acts they have an ephemeral right. To wait until the second phase is no excuse. It should have been in place, even on a temporary basis. If they put people outside the law, they cannot have much respect for government and laws.
In 1977 the Keyes-Brunet study on copyright in Canada recommended that ephemeral rights be included in new
Copyright Act
copyright legislation. They have certainly had enough notice. This is 1988 and that was 11 years ago.
A brief by the Canadian Music Publishers Association to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1979 recommended that ephemeral recordings should be dealt with in new legislation. In 1984 the Liberal Government released its White Paper and indicated its intention to provide an ephemeral exception in upcoming legislation. There were to be restrictions placed upon these exemptions, and those could have been addressed too. There was plenty of time to do that. The exemptions were the following: first, that the use of the copy was to be limited to the broadcasting organization for which it was intended; second, that all organizations concerned with broadcasting or the preparation of programs for broadcasting were to have the right to record agreed upon material for their own purposes, as long as the material was to be used solely for the agreed broadcasts; and, third, that the exemptions would also have applied when a broadcaster commissioned an independent producer to prepare a program.
In the charter of rights for creators it was also recommended that exemptions should be provided for the making of ephemeral recordings by broadcasters pursuant to existing CRTC regulations. They are in a position of jeopardy. They do not know whether they should agree and conform with the CRTC, go along with copyright, or face fines. It is a real dilemma. The second condition indicated in the charter would permit the broadcast of the program in a different time zone, provided that the recording is erased after eight days.
The Government agreed to the subcommittee's recommendations regarding ephemeral recording, but the Bill does not provide the necessary measures, leaving broadcasters in the same category as people who pirate and distribute records. 1 think that is reprehensible.
I have been advised that if the Government allows the present situation to stand, Canadian broadcasters will be faced with their greatest problem since 1929, when the Aird Commission recommended the abolishment of private broadcasting.
In respect of exhibition rights, Bill C-60 introduces those rights for the first time. The entrenchment of these rights into law was intended to provide much needed financial compensation for Canada's artists, but instead it has brought much unnecessary controversy and has created unfortunate tension between artists and museums.
The controversy began when the subcommittee on the revision of copyright not only recommended that a new copyright law should include exhibition rights but said:
-that a consensus has emerged in the artistic community on the recognition
of this new right.
Yet, no representatives from galleries or museums appeared before the subcommittee, while at least three associations on behalf of artists appeared. I do not think that is fairness or justice, and I do not think we were in a position to make the

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
wisest decision, not having had the benefit of these consultations.
I have said in the past that just because something is new is not a good enough reason not to accept it. Let us face the challenge of something new. I am not afraid of anything new, particularly if it has a potential to enable our artists to live more comfortably, if it has been subjected to some kind of testing or experience by which to evaluate such a right, and if there is consensus within the visual arts community about it.
Because I did not know very much about exhibition rights, I did some research. 1 found that no such right existed in Great Britain, Australia, or France. I also found a most intriguing situation in the United States which has the opposite effect to the proposed Canadian right. Under United States legislation copyright owners are vested with an exclusive right to display publicly a number of works, namely, literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, pantomimes, pictoral, graphic and sculptural works, and individual images of motion pictures and other audio-visual works.
However, a number of limitations are prescribed, the foremost of which is the one arising by virtue of the transfer of ownership of the work. Under this limitation, known as the first-sale doctrine, a person who lawfully acquires ownership of the work is entitled to display it publicly or authorize the public display of such a work without the copyright owner's consent.
If one buys such a work here but forgets to buy the exhibition rights, one can own it but never display it unless the artist agrees. One has to go back for permission time and again, and it is absolutely ludicrous. We must find a way to overcome that problem.
Accordingly, the owner of an original work of art in the United States is able to display it publicly in galleries, museums, shop windows, et cetera, without infringing copyright. In other words, he or she is permitted to do precisely what he or she will be prohibited from doing under the public exhibition right in Bill C-60 unless the copyright owner's consent is obtained.
I spoke earlier about division existing on exhibition rights in the artistic community. This division is not only between artists and museums but also among artists. Among the many letters I have received on exhibition rights, one artist wrote saying that exhibition rights "will not make my life worth living". She went on to say:
Although great for my ego, it does not match what happens in the marketplace. The Conservatives must come up with a more profitable solution, or be
more imaginative, to help my economics.
She went on to ask why should those who buy her pictures be restricted to where and when they show them, "for, after all, do you pay the dress designer every time you wear the dress?"
Museums and art galleries were concerned about the cost this new right might have, especially for smaller institutions
which the Canadian Museums Association said "are ill-equipped to bear the financial burden this will impose".
1 think we may well find a modus operandi, but we should have had dialogue to stop the potential conflict and incredible tension from building to this point.
The Government has implied that the placing of exhibit rights into law is only enshrining present practice. However, this is only partially correct. It is done by private contract. Most major public art galleries and museums voluntarily follow the exhibition fee schedule established by CARFAC, but the fee is applied only to temporary exhibitions which include loans from sources outside the permanent collection of the institution.
At the present time, institutions do not pay to exhibit works in their permanent collections which will not be the case after the passage of this Bill. That will place financial pressure on even major institutions. It was for these reasons that I suggested the Government would be better able to improve the status of the artist in Canada through the introduction of an exhibition right fund, as suggested by the Canadian Museums Association and the Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada. Such a fund would be similar to the Public Lending Rights Commission, a federally established fund administered through the Canada Council to compensate authors for the use of their books in public libraries. PADAC in its presentation to the committee said:
Such a fund would help to underscore the financial commitment of the
Government to support the arts in Canada, as well as provide a mechanism
that would relieve exhibiting institutions of the financial burden to pay these
fees.
These are the people who were involved in the whole issue both on the user and the consumer side. Instead, I think this right may have had the reverse effect of its intention. That is why I so dearly wanted us to have a review clause, in case there was a counter indication and we could then change or amend that provision.
Let us look at computer programs, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-60 will give computer software the same protection against illegal copying as has already been accorded to books. The Canadian software industry is worth about $1.5 billion and the industry estimates that illegal copying costs it close to $400 million a year, a lot of money. The legislation will give software copyright protection to authors for lifetime plus 50 years.
Bill C-60 as well increases the current $200 maximum penalty to $1 million or a five year prison term. Thus the Bill recommends penalties which will be effective deterrents. The legislative committee also amended the section dealing with computer programs to allow for the making of only one backup copy of a computer program. It was interesting that that exemption was allowed. It will not put computer companies into difficulty, but that exemption was not allowed for the broadcasting industry or the educators of this land.
February 3, 1988

I am, however, still disappointed that the Government has not taken action regarding semi-conductor chip protection. The United States has a Semi-Conduction Chip Protection Act which extends protection to chips created by Canadian nationals only if Canada enacts comparable legislation protecting chip originators. Canada has now been granted interim protection by the Americans. We should have done it for ourselves. The Bill was open, but we had to go to the Americans to get interim protection. I believe the Government would be best advised to give immediate and serious consideration to this issue. Since we do not have comparable legislation, the Canadian Government by its failure to act is placing Canadian semi-conductor chip originators at a serious disadvantage.
Let us take a moment and look at the mechanical royalty rate for composers. There exists, in the 1924 Copyright Act, a provision for compulsory licensing of mechanical reproductions which is a 2 cent rate for composers and music publishers of recorded music. It was intended for piano rolls-I do not know if you remember piano rolls, Mr. Speaker, I don't-and shellacked 78 RPM breakable recordings, those I do remember.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: The law was passed in the heyday of silent pictures and three years before the first national radio broadcast. A year ago I called for the abolition of this section and, therefore, I am pleased to see the repeal of Section 19 for it has been 2 cents for too long.
During committee hearings we learned that under another clause compulsory licensing had been re-introduced. The legislative committee, however, I am pleased to say, deleted the objectionable clause. I greatly appreciate the Minister's move in that regard.
I am very worried about the retroactivity in the Bill. I think it is unconscionable and it goes against all the natural, normal democratic freedoms and rights that one would expect in a country of this kind. I am most disappointed that the Government chose not to accept my amendment calling for review of copyright on a continuing basis.
When Bill C-60 was introduced last June it was considered uncontroversial. It was even suggested that it would be the perfect Bill. However, as I have outlined, it is certainly not that. This Bill contains those new provisions about which I have spoken, exhibit rights, the introduction of collectives into new areas other than performing rights, the expansion of moral rights and the defining of computer programs as literary works. Because there is no experience, because of the interrelationship or interfacing with the Industrial Design Act, I believe that we should have a five year review. We would be in a better position to know whether the concerns expressed before our committee in 1987 are still concerns and remedial action need be taken. We do not wish to get into a situation of not attending to a Bill for 60 years.
Copyright Act
I spoke about retroactivity and I have referred to many other aspects of this Bill. I would suggest that there is clear reason for concern. I think it has been unwise of the Minister not to react, particularly to that section. I believe it to be grossly unfair.
In closing my remarks, I am, nonetheless, pleased that the copyright Bill is in the process of amendment. I am hopeful that phase two will be in very quickly so that we can answer to the ongoing concerns of the users as well as the creators and find that Canadian way, that fairness, that balance that makes Canada such a special country, which should make this Act one of the most modern around the world. At this particular moment the revisions are not revisions of which we can be most proud.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for her presentations today and the tremendous amount of work that she has done on this legislation. I want to recognize also the work done by my friend, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), as well as our critic, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).
It is time for this Bill because we have waited many years for it. I might say that we have waited since 1924 for legislation to be updated and passed. I suppose a bit of recognition ought to go to the Government for bringing this Bill forward and taking the initiative, a compliment that I sometimes find difficult to give.
Earlier today it appeared to me for a variety of reasons that it might be difficult to conclude third reading today, but that is not the case. I think sufficient discussions have taken place to complete third reading stage of this Bill.
Right from the beginning Members of the New Democratic Party have said that we want to expedite the passage of this legislation. It was long overdue. Creators have waited for a long time to see this Bill introduced and passed. It has been a disappointment for so many of our creators that they had to work with legislation passed some 60 years ago, especially when you consider the technological changes that have taken place in the cultural market-place so to speak.
At the time when this legislation was first passed there were no computers, no software or hardware for the computers, no television sets, no video cassettes only things like piano rolls and so on which my friend from Mount Royal indicated earlier with which some of us are familiar even to this day. The major changes that have taken place in artistic expression, dance and choreography obviously were necessary. Choreography used to mean the explanation of a theme or a story whereas today there is form choreography without a story. The legislation must be amended to include this new type of expression.

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
The new legislation provides for many, many other changes as well. I think we have heard enough of the details of them. 1 simply want to make some general comments at this final stage of debate.
This Bill provides us with two kinds of protection for creators, those people who express themselves artistically and make Canada the kind of unique place it is. The cultural community enables us to express ourselves as Canadians in a whole variety of forms using a whole variety of different media. That is what enables us to get a sense of ourselves, to create a Canadian personality and a regional personality.
The first protection Bill C-60 provides is related to economic rights. These are the rights that allow an artist to make a living and provide the creators of Canada with the legal authority to negotiate a royalty payment in return for permission to do any of the things only the creator of the work has the legal right to do. An example of this is the right to reproduce a work. This work may be sold to those who want to make copies of the work, and in this way, the Copyright Act provides the creator with the legal right to exploit his or her work in the market-place.
We have all heard different representations on the real meaning of giving creators their right to have their works recognized in the Copyright Act. I recall hearing an inquiry made by the trustees' association claiming that teachers would be breaking the law if they were to copy materials for spontaneous use in the classroom. 1 want to go on record as saying that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) made it perfectly clear that these fears were unfounded. She insisted at the legislative hearing that Bill C-60 does not change the existing right regarding copying by students, teachers and librarians for spontaneous instructional purposes.
I believe we can clearly set aside that concern of so many people.
A second right of protection as provided by this Act relates to moral rights. The purpose of these rights is to protect the honour and reputation of the creators themselves. These rights therefore are personal. They are exercised by creators and may not be sold like economic rights. They may be exercised even with respect to a work whose economic rights have been sold and thus they add an extra layer of protection to a work a creator has already sold.
Bill C-60 also seeks to enhance the legal protection of visual artists for both moral and economic rights. A new economic right governing the exhibition of artistic works is provided in Bill C-60. On the moral rights front, the need to prove prejudice to honour and reputation has been removed and the remedies available for moral rights infringement have been
expanded. This must be excellent news for those we generally refer to as the creators.
When Bill C-60 was first tabled in the Elouse, my hon. friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood indicated that we welcomed this legislation and that we as a Party were keen to get it through the legislative committee because artists deserve this piece of legislation. She indicated at that time that our Party would co-operate by seeing that this Bill gets rapid passage. In that spirit, I would like to conclude my remarks. There is so much more I would like to say, but considering the need to pass this legislation and get on with things, I think it is only appropriate that I conclude now.
I would like to indicate an appreciation for the opportunity to say a few words on this. I look forward to hearing some comforting remarks from the Parliamentary Secretary aimed particularly at those who are students, teachers and librarians and use copyrighted material for spontaneous instructional purposes.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for their keen interest and hard work on the legislative committee which dealt with Bill C-60. The number of hours we have worked at this Bill is substantial. Their input has been greatly appreciated by the Government.
I would also like to thank the House Leader of the New Democratic Party for his intervention, understanding that he has some concerns about the Bill. I know that these concerns have been responded to.
I think all Hon. Members recognize how necessary it is to revise the existing law and how urgent it is to Canada's sense of cultural and intellectual independence to underline and affirm the legal, moral and economic rights of Canada's creative community. After more than 60 years of increasing social, economic and technological change, the watchdog over these rights, our original Copyright Act, had become an animal with little bark and even less bite. This has been made clear to all Parliamentarians and to the Canadian public throught the excellent work some two years ago of the subcommittee on the revision of copyright.
There is no question that the subcommittee's work and findings gave Government the impetus to undertake the revision we now debate. However, it did more than that. The subcommittee also gave encouragement to the creative community that this time those revisions would indeed become a reality. In 1985, the subcommittee's work was as thorough as it was extensive. In 1987, the legislative committee's work has been no less.

February 3, 1988

I believe that in the course of the last few months, the committee has heard or accepted some 100 briefs from individuals and organizations concerned or affected by the changes proposed in Bill C-60. I know that the Minister would want me to congratulate the members of the committee for both the time and the dedicated study they have given to these submissions. As a result of that work, a number of necessary amendments to the legislation have been adopted, amendments which 1 believe strengthen the principles of the Bill even further.	.
in this regard, I should like to note first the amendment to exhibition rights designed to exclude the display of certain works such as maps, plans and charts from this category. This material may have artistic as well as technical merit, but these works are not works of fine art for which the exhibition right was intended.
The second amendment I would like to mention is the one which more clearly defines what is and what is not a collective. Concern was expressed that the term "licensing body" as used in the Bill would apply to such organizations as film distributors and music publishers. Clearly, it was never the intention to consider such bodies as collectives. The definition of licensing body has been reworked, therefore, so that it does indeed encompass only true collectives.
There is one other amendment I should like to mention today, perhaps the most important one from the point of view of creators' rights. As Bill C-60 was originally drafted, there was a provision which in essence could have prevented a creator from withdrawing his or her work from public access on the expiration of a particular licence. It is certainly not the intention of Bill C-60 to impose arbitrary or compulsory restrictions on the creators' rights. It is the exact opposite. We have, therefore, amended the Bill to correct this anomaly.
I would like to add a word or two about exceptions. Some would have liked to see exceptions dealt with through amendments to Bill C-60. I know the Hon. Member for Mount Royal has expressed this view. It has been explained to members of the committee and the House why this issue must wait until phase two of copyright revision.
However, I must assure the House that the Minister is not unreceptive to the argument that there should be some exceptions, possibly for the disabled, for archives, or for music during religious services to name a few. The Government will, of course, look closely at every claim for exception. Until phase two is implemented, existing exceptions under current law will be maintained.
Copyright Act
However, there will have to be public policy incentives to justify an exception to a creator's exclusive rights to the use of his or her other works. Mere inconvenience or desire to save time or money do not provide such incentive.
Now that we have concluded report stage, it is the Government's hope that final passage of the Bill into law will be swiftly achieved.
[ Translation]
It is becoming increasingly urgent to adopt Bill C-60. If this legislation is not passed, innovative high-tech industries will be denied the kind of protection that would encourage their growth and development here in Canada.

We simply cannot afford to lose our best and most enterprising minds in the field of computer software, to take but the most obvious example, because they cannot be assured adequate protection of their work in their own country.
It is no less important to protect our artistic and cultural creators whose work is, in a very real sense, the soul of this great country. They must have the right to control and protect that which they themselves have created, whether the written word, a painting, a musical composition, a choreographed sequence of dance, or any of the other arts covered within the Bill. For example, abolition of the compulsory licence for the making of sound recordings will permit composers to control subsequent recordings of their music. They must be adequately compensated for use of their creations. This is no more, no less, than simple justice.
As the Minister has said to the legislative committee, we acknowledge that the Bill cannot satisfy everyone's demands. Some creators still believe it does not go far enough in enshrining into law the rights which should go with creation. Some users still believe it will place upon them excessive demands, both in administration and cost, which will only serve to limit public access to these works.
However, in reviewing the principles and mechanisms proposed within the Bill I do believe we have before us a workable and affordable system which will meet the major demands for copyright protection and compensation while at the same time ensuring affordable public access. Indeed, that access may even be enhanced.
Bill C-60 is also about incentive-incentive, in the case of software producers, to remain and create here in Canada; incentive, in the case of artists, writers, publishers, perhaps our academic institutions, our public libraries and galleries as well, to join in creating new works and new means of distributing them. This can only bring benefit and reward to all those who share the Government's belief that Canada's national identity,

February 3, 1988
Copyright Act
our sovereignty itself, depends upon our continuing cultural development.
[ Translation]
It is because of our faith in this development that we have decided to proceed with copyright reform. In some cases, we have followed the example of others and taken advantage of their experience. In other cases, we are setting an example for others.

In all cases we have endeavoured to respond to Canadian needs with provisions tailored to meet those needs. To the degree that Bill C-60 has received broad and continuing support from members of all Parties, 1 believe we have succeeded.
On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, this is my first experience in the legislative process as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. It has been a great learning experience if one measures it in hours. This Bill has required a great many hours of work and much intervention.
In closing I would like to thank the House Leader for the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for her interventions today and throughout the process. She has worked many hours as well, as has her research staff. I would also like to thank the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood who, at the initial stages, was involved very heavily, as was the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). We thank those people and congratulate them for their interventions.
I ask that our colleagues join myself, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, the House Leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, and the Member for Regina East, to ensure the swift passage and speedy adoption of Bill C-60 into law.
The Hon. House Leader has indicated that we are now ready to proceed with the vote on third reading. This has been a very profitable experience and I thank all those who were involved. I understood there may be a question and I am prepared to answer any questions.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point to which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has not alluded. We have heard of the concerns of educators with regard to spontaneous copying such as writing poems on the blackboard.
I have received representation on an area which is of great concern to some librarians in this country, particularly those from academic and research libraries, who wish to make material available to other libraries in order to provide equal access to all academic resources for which there are numerous requests every day. Some very expensive books are available only in large libraries.
Would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary advise whether the rather stiff penalties in the legislation before us would affect the existing practice of photocopying single copies of
articles of an academic or scientific nature for inter-library loans? Will this Bill affect that?


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer the question of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) would be to refer him to the Minister's own words in the legislative committee. In order to make the issue quite clear she indicated that the fines and penalties apply only to commercial dealings in infringing copies, dealings about which the Act is very specific; selling, hiring, exposing for sale or hire and so forth.
I think the Minister's statement in the legislative committee answers the first part of the question. Nevertheless, people must remember that unlicensed copying is illegal. That is the law as it stands in the Act of 1924. Unlicensed copying is illegal. This does not change with Bill C-60. However, as I have pointed out from the words of the Minister in the legislative committee, fines and penalties apply only to commercial dealings in infringing copies.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I understand that through legislation many other countries including Great Britain and the United States exempt single copies of academic and scientific papers for inter-library loan purposes from the copyright legislation. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether the Government is actively considering such an exemption?


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the Member for his question. The first objective of the Government was to establish the rights of creators in law. That is the process we have gone through. I am sure the Hon. Member has received the concerns he has just expressed from his constituents. We propose to deal with those concerns in phase two of the Bill which will allow for certain exemptions.
I think it is fair to say that the creators are not asking for the moon but simply for a certain respect for their talents, their skills, their efforts and respect for the right to have a say in and compensation from the use of their works. I do not think anyone would disagree or say that that is unreasonable.
I believe we are making an investment through Bill C-60. It is a modest investment when we consider the examples of those who have preceded us in that regard. The return will be an increase in creativity.
I believe the concerns about exemptions and exceptions will be dealt with fairly. The Minister indicated at the legislative committee that she is prepared to proceed as expeditiously as possible with phase two so that there will not be another wait of 60 years. She made the commitment at legislative committee to do this as quickly as possible and hopefully see phase two introduced in the House of Commons before the end of June.
February 3, 1988


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is knowledgeable in the area. What will happen to our public and private broadcasters between phase one and phase two? Are they subject to fines and jail sentences because they will be following normal practice and complying with the CRTC regulations?


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, there are two points to which the Hon. Member alludes. One is the timing and what will happen in the interim. I think I must refer to the second point first, concerning some of the cases that are pending with regard to other parts of the legislation, such as design. Currently, there are cases on design before the court. Clearly, if it infringes upon the rights of the creators as expressed in this law, they will be in contravention of the law as 1 understand it.
I repeat that it would be selling, hiring, exposing for sale or hire and so forth in that area. I think that answers her question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, 1 will leave the chair and suspend the sitting until six o'clock p.m., at which time the bells will begin to ring for 15 minutes to call Members in to vote on Bill C-84.
At 5.44 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.