OTTAWA – In its statutory review of the Copyright Act, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) parted ways with its Canadian Heritage counterpart on issues regarding ownership of cinematographic works, the definition of “sound recording” in the legislation, and the radio-royalty exemption.
However, differences between both committees were also based on process, according to a news release INDU issued on Tuesday.
It said that since the committee presented its report to the House of Commons on June 3, “some stakeholders who participated in INDU’s proceedings have expressed regret that the committee did not consider” the Heritage committee’s report, entitled Shifting Paradigms, which was tabled in Parliament on May 15.
In its release, INDU said in March 2018, it invited the Heritage committee (CHPC) “to contribute to the review by conducting a study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries, and by providing INDU with a summary of its findings. As master of its own proceedings, CHPC chose instead to present a report to the House of Commons and ask for a response from the Government of Canada.”
“Reviewing the act was INDU’s sole responsibility,” the committee added.
INDU chair Dan Ruimy (pictured) told Cartt.ca that although the news release might strike some as “out of the norm,” the committee issued it “to set the record straight on both sides.”
Time, or lack thereof, was a factor too.
Ruimy, the Liberal Member of Parliament for the British Columbia riding of Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge who ran a tea-and-coffee shop before he won the seat in the 2015 federal election, said that INDU adopted its report two days after CHPC presented Shifting Paradigms to the House.
“We were both finalizing our reports at the same time,” he explained. “If their report was going to be part of ours, we would have needed it a couple of months earlier.”
In its release, INDU said that it conducted its review of the Copyright Act in “an extensive, rigorous, and transparent manner that provided anyone the opportunity to express their views on matters of their choosing.
“As a result of that process, INDU heard 263 witnesses and received 192 briefs as well as more than 6,000 emails…from a wide range of stakeholders [that included] creators and representatives of creative industries, and, in fact, the vast majority of stakeholders who contributed to CHPC’s study.”
Continued INDU: “The Statutory Review of the Copyright Act thus recognizes every perspective expressed during the statutory review, notably on the remuneration of artists and creative industries. INDU fully stands by the report it presented to the House of Commons. It is now up to the Government of Canada to respond to its recommendations.”
CHPC has not replied to INDU’s news release with its own.
