June 20, 1936

CON

William Kemble Esling

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ESLING:

Probably a good thing.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

Probably a good thing, the hon. gentleman says, but then he is driven to the situation I have just explained, and may heaven help him then, because if he wants to obtain by proper legal means the right to perform music or a play, he will have the obligation put upon him to find out the copyright owner, and probably the author. I know that my hon. friend has too great a sense of justice to want such a situation as that to exist. May it not be that there is some nefarious influence at work for the purpose of wrecking this society and every other such society in order that some people may unduly appropriate to themselves that which does not belong to them and perform it without paying any fee.

We heard yesterday that this was a racket. I am not concerned with the word racket. I

Copyright Amendment Act

am concerned only with the one racket which some people ' are establishing in another attempt further to strip the composer of his rights through the amendment that is being proposed. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the author in Canada is placed in a tremendously difficult situation. He has to enter into competition with such companies as Famous Players Canadian Corporation. Let us see what obstacles there are in his way. Nobody mentions this, nobody presents the counterpart of the difficulties of the author and composer. Let us see who is directly opposed to the author. Let us see who is the one who is trying to take unto-himself without any payment the works of the author. The gross earnings of Famous Players Canadian Corporation in 1935 were SI,788,000, and the current assets of the corporation $2,000,000. We have all these other corporations, which time does not permit me to mention, leagued together in an endeavour to get every possible drop of blood out of the author and composer and pay nothing for it in return. We have all these other concerns on whose behalf Colonel Cooper has been so continuously active to take away by all conceivable means from Canadian authors and composers every bit of revenue they might possibly obtain. Let us see what his activities are in connection with this matter, and I mention this to show what authors and composers have to suffer. On November 16, 1935, shortly after Judge Parker had made his report, Colonel Cooper wrote to a Mr. Hess, one of his New York correspondents, the following letter, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 26, 1936, and in the Ottawa Citizen of March 31, 1936:

The agitation for the royal commission and the investigation under the royal commission have occupied a good deal of our attention for nearly two years and I am glad to have it behind me. We still have to get an order in council through at Ottawa implementing the report. After that will follow some amendments to the Copyright Act in the next session of parliament.

That is what Colonel Cooper says. That is the way in which the rights of Canadian authors are recognized by the general public.

May I again point out, what I stated before, that in one of the reports of the committee it was shown that $90,000 was paid for rentals, $65,000 to the performers, and $2054 for fees for the music. There was $20 odd paid to the authors and $150,000 for rentals and talent. I have here a reply from Mr. Paine, of New York, in answer to a telegram of mine:

If an artist of Rudy Vallee's importance performs an evening of Irving Berlin music, ten songs in the broadcast, which goes oyer a national hook-up of fifty stations, according to figures given me by National Association

of Broadcasters, Irving Berlin would receive fifty cents for each station or twenty-five dollars for his contribution to the success of broadcast, Rudy Yallee would receive three thousand dollars or more for his contribution, and the broadcasting station would receive seventy-five hundred dollars, approximately, for its contribution. This indicated disproportion of receipts by creator of the musical works and inadequacy of his remuneration, for without him in the first instance the program could not have been given.

That is true, Mr. Chairman, all along the line. Without the music in the hotels there would be less food consumed; there would be no dances; there would be no circus without music. And yet the fiddler, the man who plays the music, the dancers and the entertainers and everyone else are paid.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

I must inform the hon. member he has spoken forty minutes.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. RINFRET:

I do not think we should continue on the same lines all the time. Every copyright discussion in this house and in committee has always brought forth an exposition of both sides of the question. But there is one point to which the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) alluded in his very striking although not true picture of the situation to which I should like to refer. He mentioned Rudy Vallee performing an evening of Irving Berlin's music. Now, I wish to make a complete distinction between a performer being paid for a personal appearance and a performing right being paid to a composer. When Rudy Vallee appears in person the people want to see him and hear him in person, and they will come no matter what music he sings. Irving Berlin is in a different position. He might get a smaller amount that night than Rudy Valleee got for performing his music and making a personal appearance-I do not know whether the figures are correct-but do not forget that probably at a hundred different places Irving Berlin's music was being played that night, in hotels, at the theatres, in dance halls, everywhere, and I believe very strongly that Irving Berlin made more money that night than Rudy Vallee. As a matter of fact Irving Berlin is a very wealthy man, and if you want my personal opinion of Rudy Vallee, high priced vaudeville artist, and Irving Berlin, the composer of much jazz music, I think both of them are very much overpaid.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Herbert Earl Wilton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILTON:

Mr. Chairman, having

already spoken on this question it is not my intention to take more than a few minutes in reply to my hon. friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier). But first I want to compliment the minister (Mr. Rinfret) upon his explanation in reply to the statement that

Copyright Amendment Act

hotels and entertainment places could not be run without the performing right society. I do not think I ever heard such nonsense in my life, and I commend the minister for straightening that out.

Throughout his address the hon. member for Ottawa East has stressed the point that his whole effort is to protect the authors. Well, Mr. Chairman, the performing right society does not aid the authors one iota. I understand that the authors do not benefit from the activities of the performing right society to the extent of one single penny. Canadian authors do not get one penny of the money collected by the performing right society. A 'large number of the authors of musical compositions sell their works outright and have no further financial interest in the matter. A large number of the authors of musical compositions for which this organization collects reside in the United States. The whole thing can be summed up in just a few words: It is a yankee doodle racket which is playing Canadians for suckers.

The hon. member says that this is detrimental to the authors, but I would point out that it is detrimental to the public, and when I say the public, I mean the taxpayers. The activities of this organization have forced the government to spend money on royal commissions, and the government is being forced to spend still more money on the creation of a board to regulate this piratical organization. Much stress has been laid upon the protection of the author, but as a Canadian I am interested in protecting the taxpayer. That should be the object of every hon. member of this house and every loyal Canadian, especially when the authors are not benefiting from this organization to the extent of one single penny.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CCF

James Samuel Taylor

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Frederick Cronyn Betts

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BETTS:

Mr. Chairman, last evening I moved an amendment to section 1 of this bill which was ruled out of order. In a moment I intend to move a subamendment to the amendment of the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott). In reply to the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Chevrier) for the rights of the authors and composers, I must say that I would have been more impressed with what he had to say if he had told us how many Canadian authors or composers are members of this association.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

Seven.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

In that case they must have come in within the last month or two.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Frederick Cronyn Betts

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BETTS:

They were not members at the time of the Parker inquiry. I am speaking on behalf of all the agricultural and industrial exhibitions in Canada, and I should like to point out the results of this licence fee, as disclosed in the evidence taken before the Parker commission. The evidence of Mr. John A. Carroll, superintendent of agricultural societies in the Ontario government, is to be found at page 1306 of the evidence. He pointed out that some 292 fairs were conducted under his supervision in Ontario in 1934. These different fairs were in receipt of legislative and municipal grants. No effort was made to make a profit, but if a profit was made, it was devoted to the improvement of agricultural conditions in the community or returned to the municipality or the province or the dominion government which had made the grant in aid. He went on to enlarge on the excellent work that these fairs were doing, and I do not think I need to elaborate that.

Copyright Amendment Act

I would remind hon. members who come from rural ridings of the helpful activities carried on by these fair associations through the years. There are boys' and girls' clubs and the fair comes along as a sort of day of achievement. The youngsters come to the fair with the animals they have been attending or with whatever exhibits they have to offer. They find out what is going on in other parts of the district and they have a most cheery day. The band plays, which is a good thing. If there is any class of people who get the minimum of relaxation and cultural advantages, it is the people in the farming community.

Mr. Carroll went on to give instances which had come to his notice as superintendent of these societies where those in charge of the fairs were deleting music from the program because of the licence fee being demanded. Many of the smaller fairs are carried on entirely through voluntary efforts. The directors are not paid and much of the actual manual labour is done free of charge. The horticultural societies in the district may scrape together a little money to hold a fair and if they want some music they are forced to pay a fee to this performing right society. This society has a very wide outside field in which to work. There are the hotels, the public dance halls and similar places, and it should leave these educational and instructive country fairs alone.

The hon. member for Ottawa East referred to the contemptible way in which we treat our own nationals, and he spoke of the greed of the exhibitions and fairs, as I remember, and used the word "uncharitable." I should like to remind him of some of the remarks made by Mr. Jamieson, the president of the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited, when in the witness box before the royal commission. He was asked as to the basis of the fees charged and how he conducted his tariff making operations when it turned out that those from whom a fee was demanded were unable to pay it. His answer in effect was that that was something for them to worry about; that was their business-if they could not pay the fee they could do without the musdc. I think the words he used were that the society was in no way concerned with the ability of the music user to pay. That will be found on about page 198 of the evidence. Later he said there were no Canadian authors or composers in the membership of the society because the Canadian authors and composers were too greedy.

I (have to agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East when he says that this legisla-

tion is actually an interference with private rights, but we have heard the principle expounded in this chamber time after time that although private rights must be preserved throughout the country as far as possible, when private rights conflict with public rights, to a certain extent private rights must yield. When that was expounded in the course of the past week or so I think it was put something like this: There' may be, there undoubtedly are, times when private institutions view matters exclusively from the point of view of their own shareholders and investors, and private interest becomes contrary to public interest. At all such times the public interest should be made to prevail. Music, when it is controlled by a monopoly, is in a sense a public commodity, just as transportation is, or bread, or coal, or any other necessity. The hon. member for Ottawa East says that music is not a necessity. But it is pretty close to becoming a necessity, and it is an extraordinary situation, when we spend large sums of money training the young people in our schools in an appreciation of music, if we do as is done in Ontario in connection with these fairs-exempt them from payment of the amusement tax in respect of the admission fee, and then permit this performing right society to crack down on them and deprive a number of the small fairs of the right to have music. Therefore I am going to move an amendment to the amendment, in the following terms:

That the proposed amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "only" in the seventh line thereof and substituting the following: "profit accruing to the society, board, corporation, or other authority holding the exhibition or fair is applied in furtherance of the general purposes for which such society, board, corporation or other authority is constituted, or is returned to any dominion, provincial or municipal body which granted money in aid of the said exhibition or fair.

Just to explain the purpose of that amendment, may I state that it would leave subsection 8, which is the subsection defining private profit, as follows-perhaps I should explain that the purpose of the subsection is to exempt from payment of a licence fee any performance without private profit, which the subsection goes on to define:

The performance without private profit of any musical work at any agricultural or agricultural and industrial exhibition or fair which receives a grant from or is held under dominion, provincial or municipal authority, provided that such performance shall be deemed to be given without private profit, if the only profit accruing to the society, board, corporation or other authority holding the exhibition or fair is applied in furtherance of the general purposes for which such society,

Copyright Amendment Act

board, corporation or other authority is constituted, or is returned to any dominion, provincial or municipal body which granted money in aid of the said exhibition or fair

As I said last night I am entirely in sympathy with the purposes of the amendment of the Postmaster General, but I fear that it will not accomplish its object, because it limits its definition of "performance without private profit" to cases in which the only fees which are paid are paid to individual performers or their agents. My submission to the committee is that a bandmaster cannot be properly called an individual performer. His very function militates against that description. He is a conductor. And if you limit the exemption to cases in which the only fees paid are those paid to individual performers, you will have every fair which employs a band and pays a bandmaster subject to a successful action by the performing right society, who have proved themselves among the keenest litigants and defenders of their rights in the courts that we have seen for some time in Canada. Therefore I ask the members of the committee to vote for the subamendment. With all deference I must express my fear that the amendment will be a mere gesture to protect those fairs and societies, whereas the subamendment will be rockbound.

I would remind hon. members of the committee that this question is not clouded by party issues; that they will be going home soon, and when they get back, if they have not protected the local fair from the payment of this licence fee, they need not expect the old brass band to be out to meet them.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. RINFRET:

I regret I cannot accept the subamendment. I do not jump at that conclusion; it is the same point my hon. friend wanted to make last night. I wish merely to point this out, that in this bill we wanted to give a definition of a fair where there is no private profit, and that is in accordance with the act of 1931 and also with the recommendation of Judge Parker. What my hon. friend now proposes is that even when there is a profit, but the profit accrues to the fair, it should be exempt from copyright. I do not think that would be in the spirit either of the recommendation of the judge or of the act of 1931, but would introduce an altogether different principle. Therefore I would ask the committee not to accept the subamendment but to accept the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment negatived.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Shall the amendment to section 1 carry?

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Before we proceed there are one or two matters I wish to point out. I was awaiting the hon. member for Ottawa East; I did not know he had concluded his address.

In the first place, when musical compositions began to receive copyright there was no question of licensing the performance of musical copyrights. The publishers of music bought the copyright from the author and published the music and distributed it at a price for each sheet of music. That was the return which publishers obtained in compensation to them for their publication and for the prior payments which they had made to the composers of the music. When the Copyright Act as it now exists was first enacted by the British parliament, and then when certain clauses of it were enacted in 1921 by this parliament, the provision with regard to the infringement of copyright and the performance of musical copyright was adopted and remains the same in Canada as it exists in England. I desire to read section 26 of the Copyright Act of Canada, which I think is taken verbatim from the English copyright act:

26. (1) Any person who, without the written consent of the owner of the copyright or of his legal representative, knowingly performs or causes to be performed in public and for private profit the whole or any part, constituting an infringement, of any dramatic or operatic work or musical composition in which copyright subsists in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months, or to both.

That is the provision in the statute of 1921 dealing with and providing penalties for infringement of musical copyright. But the exception made in England, which was adopted by statute in Canada, was that the performance in public for private profit only should constitute an infringement of the copyright of a musical work. Therefore there must be private profit in order to constitute an infringement, and since then the question has arisen as to what constitutes private profit in connection with fairs and educational institutions. The minister has introduced an amendment to the existing legislation, which I assume has been framed by the law officers or at least approved by them.

Just a further word. There can be no infringement by a public performance of a copyright musical work unless that performance is for private profit, and this definition of private profit, providing as to when it applies, which is embodied in the proposed amendment, I am prepared to accept because

Copyright Amendment Act

I am not prepared to present any argument against it at the present time. But I should like to remind the hon. member for Ottawa East that he has confused the former Secretary of State with the parliament of Canada. He has repeatedly stated that the copyright act of 1931 was enacted by the former Secretary of State, and I should like to remove from his mind any such misapprehension, because the Secretary of State has no power of enactment. A bill was introduced. It was referred to a committee of this house, where it was studied for weeks, and many witnesses were called. The whole matter was thoroughly investigated; a report was made thereon and the bill was reported with certain amendments by a majority of the committee. I grant that the hon. member for Ottawa East was a dissenting member of that committee, but the bill then passed this house almost unanimously, with the exception of the vote, I think, of the hon. member for Ottawa East. It was then passed on to the senate, who again referred it to a committee. It passed the senate and received the endorsement of His Excellency the Governor General. So it is hardly fair to the former Secretary of State to suggest that an enactment passed in the ordinary course is an enactment by the former Secretary of State.

The hon. gentleman has also stated that this bill is a flagrant violation of the copyright convention and a defiance of public rights. Last evening I quoted from the report of a committee of the House of Commons in England, which I believe to have been unanimous, and that report appears on Hansard. It was referred for the consideration of the Board of Trade in England and that government department obtained the opinions of experts. Only recently the reports of the experts were considered by a special committee of the department, which reported to Right Hon. Walter Runciman, president of the Board of Trade, on November 21, 1935. This committee does not discuss the question whether legislation such as is here proposed is within or without the terms of the Rome convention, but they do insist, whether it is within or without, that at the ensuing meeting of the copyright union at Brussels, which was to take place in September of thi9 year, the position of the British government should be made clear in this way, and I quote from the report:

117. We have taken account of the findings and recommendations of the select committee of the House of Commons on the musical copyright bill-

From which I read last night-

-and we recomend that a proposal be put forward for the addition to article XI of the following two paragraphs:

(4) Each country of the union may, by its national legislation, provide for the regulation of the exercise of any of the rights covered by this article in respect of musical and dramatico-musical works in any case in which any person, or any body of persons, owns or controls such rights in respect of so great a number of such works that such person or body of persons is able to, and does,

1. impose unduly onerous charges or conditions for permission to exercise any such rights, or

2. unreasonably refuse to grant any such permission; but no such legislative regulation shall prevent the payment of an equitable remuneration for any dealing with such works in any of the ways covered by this article,-

That is, the amended article of the convention of Rome that is to be proposed at Brussels.

-such remuneration to be fixed, failing agreement, by the competent authority in the country concerned.

(5) For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, a musical or dramatico-musical work shall be considered to include the combination of music with any words so closely associated therewith as to form part of the same work.

Then the report proceeds, in paragraph 11S:

We further recommend that, in the event of the non-acceptance at the Brussels conference of the principle underlying the provisions proposed by us, the United Kingdom delegates should be instructed to make a reservation or declaration to the effect that His Majesty's government consider that this country is free to enact such legislation as may be considered necessary in the public interest to prevent or deal with any abuse of the monopoly rights conferred upon copyright owners by United Kingdom law.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

Will the hon. gentleman read paragraph 119 also? It says:

We would add, however, that our recommendation should not be taken to imply that we think that such legislation is called for in this country.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Quite so.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

The hon. gentleman did not read that.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

My hon. friend did not give me time.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. RINFRET:

This committee found

that the rates in England were not excessive, but they wanted this provision in case the rates should become excessive. I may say they are much lower than the fees asked by the Canadian Performing Right Society.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I was proceeding to give the quotation in full and the explanation with regard to it. It was due to the fact that the rates have not been raised in England, and the performing right society in England has conformed to public requirements and by amicable arrangements from time to time has dealt with the public interest so that the

Copyright Amendment Act

exorbitant rates demanded in this country have not been demanded there. But in view of the possibility of rates being so raised in England the government of the united kingdom have taken preliminary steps to make it [DOT]clear that if such exorbitant rates are demanded legislative action will be taken there, as this parliament is requested now to do.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier

Liberal

Mr. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

Subject to the approval of Berne.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO FEES, CHARGES AND ROYALTIES, AND TO CONSTITUTE A COPYRIGHT APPEAL BOARD
Permalink

June 20, 1936