Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 1 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 22, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 5:20 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.


Ms Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my responsibility to preside over the election of the chairman. I am ready to receive any motions to this effect.

Senator Lewis: I move that Senator Milne be chairman.

Ms Lank: Are there any other motions?

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Lewis that the Honourable Senator Milne be elected chair of this committee.

Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Ms Lank: I declare the motion carried and, in accordance with rule 88, the Honourable Senator Milne is elected chair of the committee. I invite the Honourable Senator Milne to take the chair.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: This committee has a very proud tradition. I was quickly scanning through the history of it and saw that Senator Carstairs was the first non-lawyer to be chair of this committee. Now you are stuck with a second non-lawyer as your chair.

I will begin with an apology. I have another distinct disadvantage in that I am completely unilingual. I can speak a little bit of German, but very little French.

Senator Prud'homme: You are young and can learn.

The Chairman: I intend to try. I promise you that.

I am lucky in that Dr. Lank has agreed to stay on as the clerk of the committee for at least awhile. I think she is one of the best clerks in the Senate. I am delighted that she will be here to hold my hand.

I hope that this committee will carry on in the spirit of cooperation and open, free and honest debate on every issue, as it has done in the past. I intend to do everything possible to keep the process open and to ensure that everyone has a chance to hear every side of the legislation referred to this committee.

I should warn you, though, that I tend to get a little bored if I hear something argued more than once, and certainly if I hear it argued more than twice, so I may occasionally be a bit sharp.

With that, we will carry on to the election of the deputy chair.

Is there a motion for deputy chair?

Senator Nolin: I congratulate you, Madam Chair, on your election.

I move that Senator Cogger be deputy chair of this committee.

The Chairman: Are there any further nominations?

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Congratulations, Senator Cogger.

We have to set up a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The proposed motion reads:

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the Deputy Chair and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation;

That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to the agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and

That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.

Senator Jessiman: I so move.

The Chairman: Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: We need a motion to print the committee's proceedings. The suggested wording is:

That the committee print 450 copies of its proceedings and that the Chair be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.

Senator Nolin: I so move, Madam Chairman.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: We need the following motion:

That, pursuant to Rule 89, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.

Senator Lewis: I have a question. I thought we had to include that we could hear evidence.

Senator Cogger: In French it says "to hear evidence".

The Chairman: You are right. It should state "to hear and print".

Senator Cogger: As a point of interest, I have always thought that this rule was there -- maybe it is a misnomer -- not to hold a hearing, but if you end up short of a quorum when a meeting has started, is that not really what we mean here?

The Chairman: You are receiving evidence. I guess the evidence is oral, so you are hearing it.

Senator Cogger: That is not my point. I never thought that was the meaning. For instance, if you and I were sitting here, we may have said, "There is no one else, so let us start the meeting." I did not think that was proper. Perhaps the clerk can enlighten us.

Senator Jessiman: If the numbers are not there, you do not have a quorum. You have a quorum just to adjourn until such time as you can have a proper quorum.

Senator Cogger: I thought we were sometimes allowed to continue in the absence of a quorum, even momentarily, if someone must attend another meeting and then come back.

The Chairman: Perhaps the clerk could explain this to us because I understand that a quorum is four people. However, if we do not have four senators and witnesses are waiting for four hours until we do have a quorum, this would allow the committee to at least hear the witnesses but not to make any decisions. It is really designed for the convenience of the witnesses.


Senator Prud'homme: I have attended several meetings since the beginning of the week and this is the first time that the quorum is not indicated. If you can tell me what it is, then you have answered my question. Where exactly did you see some mention of a quorum?


The Chairman: A quorum is included in the Rules of the Senate. I believe it is four.

If there are no further questions, I will hear the motion.

Senator Lewis: I move:

That, pursuant to Rule 89, the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Would someone move the next motion on the agenda, please.

Senator Watt: I move:

That, pursuant to Rule 104, the Chairman be authorized to report expenses incurred by the committee in the last session.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Would someone move the next item on the agenda, please.

Senator Lewis: I move:

That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign a research officer to the committee;

That the Chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it;

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and

That the Chairman, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Would someone move the next motion on the agenda, please.

Senator Losier-Cool: I move:

That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chairman or, in his absence, the Deputy Chairman; and

That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and the Clerk of the Committee.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Would someone move the next motion on the agenda, please?

Senator Cogger: I move:

That the committee empower the Chair to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.

The Chairman: I have just been informed that this is not for committee travel for hearings, but for conference travel in case some of the committee members or the staff should be attending some particular conference.

Senator Lewis: This motion really a new one, is it not? Usually this designation or power would be given to the chair. We are doing this in a vacuum of sorts.

The Chairman: Apparently, we passed it before.

Senator Lewis: Fine.

Senator Cogger: I thought it used to be that the committee would designate, not the chair.

The Chairman: It can be changed to whatever you prefer.

Senator Cogger: Let us leave it for now.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Would someone move the next motion on the agenda, please.

Senator Lewis: I move:

That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.

The Chairman: The Rules of the Senate say that there is a right to pay for two witnesses per organization to appear before a committee of the Senate to put forth a viewpoint. This committee in the past has made it a policy just to pay for one member of an organization to come and appear before us.

Senator Jessiman: One per organization?

The Chairman: Yes. This is just to keep the costs down. There were circumstances in the last Parliament where we paid for two witnesses to appear, but hopefully we will be able to stick to the unspoken rule of one.

I suggest we move:

That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.

I would add to the motion that it will be understood that hopefully we will only have one witness from each organization.

Senator Bryden: Before it goes anywhere, I attended the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday. They had exactly the same provision, except they included a sentence requesting witnesses to attend the committee.

Senator Jessiman: Just those witnesses.

Senator Bryden: Those witnesses that the committee requested.

Senator Cogger: I do not like that. It is like picking and choosing. It is the witnesses who apply. I remember another chairman who used to be pretty good at stacking the deck and saying, "Okay, that institute and that gang," et cetera. The first thing you knew is that he had called in the witnesses.

Senator Bryden: I do not think it was confidential. One of the discussions that went on in the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was that we would not offer to pay the witness fees of a representative of a major corporation who wanted to appear on a piece of environmental legislation. For instance, if Conrad Black wants to make a representation on our first bill, will we pay him $20 travelling expenses? I simply raise that for discussion.

The Chairman: I understand there is always a choice because the wording of this motion is the committee "may" reimburse.

Senator Nolin: In the last Parliament, we frequently paid witnesses who had asked to appear.

Senator Cogger: A lot of people do not ask. The Canadian Bankers Association did not ask.

Senator Nolin: I refer to small NGOs, whom we welcome.

The Chairman: We want to ensure that every side of an issue is aired.

Senator Lewis: On the other hand, you do not want witnesses turning up to say, "I want my expense money."

Senator Nolin: The "may" is important.

Senator Gigantès: In answer to Senator Cogger's fear that the chairman might stack the committee, the motion reads, "...pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling ..."

Senator Cogger: I see your point, except we have stayed away from the further line Senator Bryden was bringing in which read, "...those witnesses that the committee personally invited." I did not want that.

Senator Gigantès: Suppose someone is clearly being frivolous, such as the Rhinoceros Party.

The Chairman: They are covered by the word "may".

Senator Nolin: Do not start that.

Senator Cogger: Remember the pharmaceutical bill when we had nine different groups attending, all telling us the same thing.

Senator Gigantès: We also had every pharmaceutical company wanting to appear to tell us the same story. We had two stories, pro and con.

The Chairman: I believe that is where the steering committee comes in and manages the number of witnesses who appear before this committee.

Senator Nolin: You have just been empowered to do that.

The Chairman: Yes, and the operative word is "may".

Senator Prud'homme: I think it should be a little more precise. If it is a controversial bill, you still have the ultimate decision on how many witnesses you want to hear and who you will pay. I could imagine many people saying, "Well, it is a nice trip, and I represent the poor of Canada."

In the committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution, we struck three groups out yesterday, and they were already on the agenda. It was painful, and they were sure they had the right to be heard.


Senator Nolin: All of the items voted on today must be taken as a package. One cannot be singled out and the others set aside. This allows the sub-committee on agenda and procedure to make all of its decisions in the interest of the committee, bearing in mind as well the witnesses and the various bills that will be examined.

Senator Gigantès: This committee has never mistreated witnesses or denied anyone the opportunity to make a presentation. I have never seen that happen.

Senator Nolin: In the last Parliament, we went one step further to ensure that all viewpoints were heard and if there was any uncertainty, we went back to the witness list to give everyone a chance. Perhaps that is why we beat every existing record in terms of the number of hours and days of committee meetings. At least we had the satisfaction of knowing that we did our job.


The Chairman: I hope that the committee will adopt this motion and trust the steering committee to prune the list down as much as is reasonable, while still having a full hearing and airing every side of the question.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The motion is carried.

One thing that has apparently caused problems in the past with witnesses has been the fact that they have not put their expense accounts in promptly. I wonder if the committee would consider setting a time limit for the receipt of such witness expenses. Some still have not submitted their expenses, and it has been over a year.

Senator Jessiman: How long do they give us?

Senator Nolin: We have 60 days.

Senator Jessiman: Do not give them less than us.

Senator Cogger: I think you need to say that a payment will take place upon application received not more than 60 days after the appearance, including receipts.

The Chairman: I believe the receipts must be attached in any event.

Senator Jessiman: I so move.

The Chairman: It has been moved by Senator Jessiman that witnesses be required to submit their expenses not more than 60 days following their appearance.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The motion is carried.

Would the committee agree to carrying on the tradition that we have had in the past of only having one witness per organization?

Senator Cogger: I do not think you should set that as a rule. We will see as it goes.

Senator Gigantès: That is different than paying for the expenses of only one witness per organization. If five of them attend, we pay for one, and the chairman can say, "The five of you have half an hour."

Senator Nolin: When the steering committee decides that an organization will appear, the committee also informs that organization as to the limit we will impose upon them. They are informed, "Do not attend with five people at the table. One person will speak, perhaps two if one of them is the counsel or the chairman of the organization."

Senator Watt: Do you not think we are going too far in restricting people who will appear in front of us?

The Chairman: This motion only has to do with payment. It is up to the steering committee to inform the attending group that if they come with more witnesses, then they still have exactly the same amount of time to make the same case, no matter how many they bring.

Is that agreeable to every one, until we have to change it?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The next item deals with electronic media coverage of public meetings.

Senator Gigantès: I find the spotlights very disturbing. They hurt my eyes, and they give me headaches. I protect myself by wearing sunglasses, and then colleagues complain to me that I look like a Mafia chieftain.

The Chairman: I suggested this motion so that, if some particularly controversial issue comes before us about which the public is concerned, we would already have the Senate's permission and would not be required to go back to the Senate on every single issue. It would be my hope that we would have as little TV coverage as possible.

Senator Gigantès: As a professional photographer, I would ask that we insist they use bounce light; that is, they turn the lights to the ceiling and not into eyes. They can have excellent results and not blind us.

The Chairman: That is a good point.

Senator Prud'homme: The first part of proposed motion 11 is excellent and it seems that we all agree. Regarding the second part, could you not reflect for a few seconds? The subcommittee -- that means three senators -- will be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion. I would be more careful. The subcommittee should rather "recommend" to the whole committee. Some members may strongly disagree about certain issues that can become politically sensitive. I try to be as neutral as I can.

On this issue, you need general permission from the Senate. Once you have that, the steering committee can recommend and the whole committee can decide.

The Chairman: Should we then just remove the second clause?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Nolin: I would then move:

That the Chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

We have been allotted two time slots for our regular meetings; that is, Wednesday in this room when the Senate rises or at 5:05 p.m., and on Thursday at 10:45 a.m. in Room 705 of this building. However, once the Summit Room is up and running, we will regularly meet over there. That is room 257 in the East Block where they are still installing communication lines for the reporters. The room should be ready in about two weeks.

Senator Cogger: Is there a particular reason for the 10:45 time slot?

The Chairman: The staff have been juggling to find time slots to avoid conflicts for members who sit on more than one committee.

Senator Gigantès: Does that mean we will work through the lunch hour?

The Chairman: If we work through the lunch hour, we will be fed.

Senator Gigantès: That is not my point. We then cannot plan on having lunch with anyone else on Thursdays?

The Chairman: That is right. However, we have no meeting planned for tomorrow. Our first meeting will probably be next week.

As to future business of the committee, Bill C-220 was referred to us this afternoon. There are many requests coming in on that bill. The steering committee will meet to discuss them.

The committee adjourned.

OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 29, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-220, to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime), met this day at 3:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.


The Chairman: I see a quorum. The meeting will now come to order.

Mr. Wappel, please make your presentation.


Mr. Tom Wappel, MP, sponsor of the bill: Madam Chair, I am pleased that your committee decided to start examining my bill today. However, although I did have time to prepare for today's presentation, there was not time to arrange to have my comments translated into the other official language and I apologize for that. I do have copies of my comments for each of you in English. I will try to speak slowly and clearly so as not to make it too hard for our interpreters.


When my assistant arrives, we can distribute the material.

Honourable senators, imagine a country where serial killers, child rapists, murderers, and violent criminals can, from their jail cells, write the stories of their crimes, sell the books to the citizens of the country within which they wreaked such havoc, and bank the money anywhere in the world.

Imagine a country where these criminals can collaborate with movie producers, sell the stories of their crimes, be technical advisors to the creation of the movies of their infamous activities, and bank their ill-gotten profits anywhere in the world.

It is sad but true that that country is Canada.

Lest you think that I am over-dramatizing, did you know that copyright certificates of registration for various works have been granted to child-killer Clifford Robert Olson? In the appendix to my brief are copies of three copyright certificates granted to Clifford Olson for various so-called works which he has produced, and I will turn to those in a moment.

This state of affairs exists despite the fact that the common law of our country has held, for centuries, that a criminal may not profit from his or her crime. That is why a person who murders their spouse cannot collect the victim's life insurance, even as the named beneficiary. Should the murderer write a book about his or her crime and make a profit from its sale, surely that is as much profiting from the crime as collecting insurance, yet there is no prohibition of this in Canadian law.

A few might argue that these miscreants have a right under our Charter to sell their stories in whatever form and to pocket the profits. The vast majority of Canadians, myself included, do not share this view. How can we prevent such a perversion of the most fundamental principles of crime and punishment, indeed of justice? My private member's Bill C-220 is an attempt to ensure that no criminal may profit from writing about or selling the stories of their sordid activities.

The idea was born in the summer of 1993 when I read a news report that Karla Homolka was considering selling her story for a profit. If Homolka, why not Paul Bernardo himself or Clifford Olson or Denis Lortie or the torturer-murderers of Toronto shoe-shine boy Emmanuel Jacques?

On what principles is this bill based? There are two. First, no criminal should ever profit from telling the story of their crimes. Second, criminals need not be prevented from telling their stories provided that they do not profit from the telling.

The bill, in a nutshell, will include in the Criminal Code definition of "proceeds of crime" any profit or benefit gained by a person or his family from the creation of a work based on the indictable offence for which the person was convicted. Thus, we would be able to seize such profits under the current Criminal Code provisions dealing with the proceeds of crime. This is clearly criminal law jurisdiction under our Constitution.

However, this alone does not help us if a criminal sells his or her story to a movie producer in the U.S., for example, who deposits the criminal's payment into a Swiss bank account. In order to capture this possibility, the bill also amends the Copyright Act, clearly a federal jurisdiction under the Constitution, as well as the Criminal Code, to provide first that the sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order that any work based on the offence is subject to a new section in the Copyright Act, and, second, to provide in the new section that the copyright for such a work which would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the Crown forever.

This would permit Canada to bring action in any country which is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright to enforce its rights, including seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos, et cetera.

I repeat: The bill would not prevent a criminal from creating a work or collaborating on a work based on the offence, but it would prevent the criminal from profiting from its creation.

I read the speeches of honourable senators at second reading of this bill last Wednesday. In order to address one of the concerns raised, I should like to set out the history of this bill.

As I said earlier, when I researched and determined in July of 1993 that there was nothing in our laws to prevent Karla Homolka from selling the story of her crimes, I began to consider a solution. Because of our Constitution and its division of powers, I spent over a year and a half researching, drafting, and redrafting this bill. I introduced the bill in February, 1995.

As honourable senators know, but others listening may not, I then had to be lucky enough to have my name selected in the private members' bills lottery. I had to defend my bill before a private members' business subcommittee of the House of Commons comprised of members of the Liberal, Reform and Bloc Québécois parties. This committee unanimously recommended that the bill, then called Bill C-205, be votable.

It received the maximum three hours of debate permitted under house rules. Twenty-three members of Parliament spoke to this bill. It passed second reading on September 24, 1996, virtually unanimously, and was referred to the Justice committee. The Justice committee held hearings and heard witnesses over two days, including, from the Department of Justice, the assistant deputy minister in the policy sector. The committee accepted two clarification amendments and unanimously reported the bill to the house on April 8, 1997.

Throughout this process, the house received numerous petitions from across Canada signed by thousands of citizens calling upon Parliament to pass this bill. It had been supported throughout its history by both the Bloc Québécois and the Reform parties, as well as by numerous victims' rights groups and the Canadian Police Association. The house unanimously passed the bill on April 10, 1997, and sent it to the Senate. It received second reading in the Senate and died when the election was called, waiting for this committee, or its predecessor, to consider it.

I reintroduced the very same bill on October 1, 1997. The house unanimously passed it at all stages and sent it to the Senate. This was done, honourable senators, in my view, because the house felt there was no sense in re-inventing the wheel since the bill was fully considered, studied, and debated by the house only five months ago.

If you turn to the last three pages of my brief, you will see photocopies of the copyrights issued to Clifford Olson. You will see the title on the first copyright certificate listed as Profile of a Serial Killer -- The Clifford Olson Case. Who is the author? Clifford Robert Olson. He obtained this copyright on October 10, 1989. Olson is listed also as the owner.

I would draw your attention to this specific item: The copyright certificate has a place for two notations, one for the author and a second place for the owner. Obviously, this means that the author is not the owner in all cases. I will tie that fact into my remarks in a moment.

The second copyright is dated March 10, 1995. The title listed is Motivational Sexual Homicide Patterns of Serial, Child Killer -- Clifford Robert Olson. The item is described as a series of videos. I will not get into how he managed to produce a series of videos in a maximum security prison, as that is another matter, but he did it, and he has a copyright on those videos issued by the Copyright Office. Again, he is both the author and the owner.

The third copyright was issued on August 22, 1992. The title is Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer -- A Profile. The nature of the copyrighted item is described as "literary," and, again, Olson is the author and the owner. Aside from the fact that we are talking about Clifford Olson, I bring to your attention that there are two categories -- author and owner.

This bill is supported by many non-partisan organizations, including but not limited to the following: Canadian Police Association, Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime, Families Against Crime Today Society, End Violence Against Children, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, Victims for Justice, Emotional Support for Victims of Violence and their Family, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, Victims for Justice, and Canadians Taking Action Against Violence.

At committee stage in the house, five arguments against the bill were cited. At this time, I should like to deal with these five arguments, as well as some others that have been raised since October 1.

First, it is suggested that the amendment specifically expanding the definition of proceeds of crime stretches the criminal law powers of the government. It is argued this is so because "proceeds of crime" is expanded to include moneys not derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a crime but derived from a lawful activity, that is, writing a book.

The response is that the commission of the crime is a condition precedent to the writing of the book about the crime. Without the crime, there can be no book about the crime. Thus, the link is direct and, if not direct, then certainly indirect. Similarly, there is no direct link between purchasing life insurance on a loved one, which is a legal contractual activity, and then collecting on the proceeds upon killing the loved one. The common law, however, will not permit a criminal to benefit financially in this instance.

Likewise, purchasing a car, a boat, jewellery or art work, for example, are all legal activities. However, if they are purchased with money directly or indirectly linked to a crime, they can be confiscated. This was in the news only last week when a marijuana cultivator had his farm and farm equipment confiscated. Thus, the argument put forward against my bill is that if a hired assassin buys a car with the payment for his crime, his car can be seized as proceeds of crime, but if he writes a book about the crime and makes even more money, then the law cannot seize this money as it is stretching the powers of the criminal law. In my view, this flies in the face of common sense.

The second argument suggests that the bill is extremely far reaching because the proposals extend beyond the incarceration period. The answer is deceptively simple. The bill provides, as a mandatory part of the sentence imposed after conviction, that any copyright in any work about the crime by the criminal will be subject to new section 12.1 of the Copyright Act. Yes, this would be for the life of the criminal, but how is this any different than section 100.(1) of the Criminal Code which permits a judge, at the time of sentence, to prohibit a person from owning firearms or explosives for life? I would argue there is no difference intellectually or in law. Indeed, the author of a work has a copyright for the life of the author, plus 50 years. The concept of the copyright vesting in the Crown for the life of the offender is already an accepted fact of copyright law.

Third, it is argued that because federal bureaucrats are currently working with their provincial colleagues to do part of what my bill proposes, that somehow this bill should not proceed. I point out that, first, such talks have been going on for quite some time, years in fact, without concrete results; and, second and more important, even if the federal government and all 10 provincial governments and the two territories passed uniform laws, which is by no means guaranteed, they will not stop a Canadian criminal from profiting from the telling or selling of the story of his crime outside Canada. We could still see convicted criminals selling the rights to their stories to a foreign movie producer, having the money deposited in a Swiss bank account, and spending it with impunity anywhere in the world, except Canada. This bill will stop such an unjust result.

Fourth, it is argued that the bill creates a problem in international law. This assertion is made without substantiation and without reference to any particular section of any law or international convention. I respectfully suggest that this assertion should be rejected for the following reasons.

The articles of the Berne Convention in and of themselves are of no legal effect in Canada, but because our domestic law, which is our Copyright Act, is derived in part from these articles, the convention serves as an interpretative tool, not a binding tool, to domestic legislation.

The word "author" is not defined in the Berne Convention. Therefore, it is up to domestic legislation to define the word "author". The domestic law of Canada, as well as other Berne signatory countries, provides for deemed authorship in others, other than the actual author, and these deeming provisions have not been opposed by the international community. I cite specifically Crown Copyright, section 12, and the employer/employee provisions of section 13(3) of the Copyright Act. Section 12 states:

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.

Section 13(3) states:

Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright ...

As you can see, senators, the proposal in Bill C-220 to vest ownership in the Crown is already being applied to law-abiding Canadian authors in deemed circumstances. What can be wrong with applying similar provisions to criminals?

The fundamental principle of the Berne Convention requires each member country to extend to authors and works of all other member countries the same copyright protection as it does to its own nationals. Please note that the principle is not to extend a uniform international set of principles somehow codified in the convention but, rather, to give the same protection to foreigners as to nationals.

As I said before, the Berne Convention does not define "author" and it also does not define "initial ownership". It is up to member countries to define initial ownership according to domestic law, which is exactly what Bill C-220 seeks to do by in effect stating that the initial ownership in a work in deemed circumstances would vest in the Crown.

David Vaver, in his article entitled Copyright in Foreign Works: Canada's International Obligations, points out that countries often allocate ownership to the employer using legal techniques which vary from vesting the copyright initially in the employer to creating an automatic assignment of rights from the author to the employer.

Bill C-220 proposes to vest ownership of the work in Her Majesty in right of Canada. This is consistent with already established practices in member countries. In any event, L.E. Harris, in her article entitled Ownership of Employment Creations, points out that many convention countries have employer ownership and there have been no complaints that employer ownership is against international obligations during the 62-year existence of such provisions.

Therefore, I ask, if the true author's work can and is deemed to be owned by the author's employer, how can one object that a criminal author's work about the crime is deemed to be owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, particularly when such deemed ownership is made for public policy, public safety and peace, order and good government reasons?

Fifth, the bureaucrats suggest there is a Charter risk associated with the proposed changes and that this risk should somehow disqualify Bill C-220 from becoming law. I ask that this committee categorically reject such a proposition. All legislation we pass, particularly criminal law legislation, is at risk of a Charter challenge.

The Parliament of Canada has passed gun control legislation knowing it was at risk of a Charter challenge. Indeed, that risk is now reality, as the law is being challenged. That risk did not stop us from passing the bill. Parliament passed the Tobacco Products Control Act knowing it was at risk of a Charter challenge. Indeed, notwithstanding all the assurances of the Department of Justice that the bill was constitutional, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Parliament passed the bill despite the risk.

Please remember that the criminal would not be prevented in any way from writing a book, collaborating on a movie, or any other method of expressing himself. Bill C-220 only prohibits the criminal from profiting from that freedom to express oneself, and only in the limited circumstances when the freedom of expression concerns the very crime committed.

This is a key element of the bill, so I wish to repeat and emphasize it. Nothing in this bill restricts the right to freedom of expression of the criminal. The criminal may talk about or write about the crime he committed. What the bill seeks to prevent is the criminal profiting from talking about or writing about the crime.

In any event, even if there were Charter violation, I suggest the Supreme Court would invoke section 1 of the Charter to validate the law as it reaffirms a centuries-old truism of our law that no criminal may profit from his crime.

In an editorial, The Toronto Star offered the opinion that the bill would deny prison inmates a productive outlet for their talents. This is simply not true. This bill would not prevent criminals from talking about or writing about their crimes, but it would prevent them from profiting from such talking or writing.

Others say that this bill would discourage inmates from telling Canadians how it feels to be inside the justice system. This is factually incorrect. The bill prevents criminals from profiting from telling, selling, or writing about the crimes for which they were convicted. Prison experiences, crimes of other individuals, opinions on penal reform, indeed anything unrelated to the crime for which the person was convicted, are completely unaffected by this bill. Indeed, even if the criminal writes about the crimes for which they were convicted as part of a work about their experience within the justice system, if the part about the crime is only a small part of the work, my bill would not have an effect.

Another criticism is that the bill penalizes families of criminals because it applies to them. The bill addresses the possibility that a criminal, in order to avoid the intent of the bill, collaborates with a spouse in order for the spouse to collect profits which would otherwise be prohibited if the author were the criminal himself. This is an obvious loophole which the bill tries to plug. If a family member chooses to write about the crime -- for example, a victim of incest -- and does not collaborate with the person convicted of the crime, the bill has no effect on the person's work or ability to profit by it.

Some say the bill is a response to a non-existent problem. If the problem is non-existent, then thank goodness and let us keep it that way. I have shown you the certificates of copyright granted to Clifford Olson. At his section 745 hearing this past summer, he told the jury he had sold his story in the U.S. and that $1 million was in a Washington lawyer's escrow account. I hope this is not true, but it could be. Indeed, if it is not true now, it could in the future come to pass.

The implication of this criticism that the problem is non-existent is that only in response to acts which society deems repugnant or unacceptable should a law be drafted -- that legislators should be passive, reactive instead of active and ensuring that society is protected from even the possibility of unacceptable conduct. If it is agreed that the principle of the bill is correct, namely that no-one should make a dime from committing a crime, then it is the responsibility of legislators to ensure that it does not happen.

Finally, it is argued that if a criminal makes money by selling the story of his crime, the victims and the families of victims could sue the criminal and therefore we do not need a law such as Bill C-220. To force victims and their families to sue is to penalize victims again. Why should victims be put to the expense and time of a civil suit to recover monies from the criminal? Is this fair or just? If the criminal has arranged for the monies to be outside of Canada, how can victims recover their judgments? Must they then be put to the expense of foreign litigation in an attempt to seize profits? All legislation is a balancing of interests, and, on balance, I would argue it is preferable to have the state intervene to seize profits rather than forcing victims to use their own sometimes scarce resources to sue the criminal.

In conclusion, I remind honourable senators that the bill has passed the House of Commons unanimously twice, in both the 35th and 36th Parliaments. It is rare that such consensus is demonstrated in the House of Commons. The bill makes sense, for it is a matter of common sense.

I urge honourable senators to study this bill and, in due course, report the bill back to the Senate for third and final reading, ensuring that no one will ever make a dime from committing a crime. Thank you.

Senator Jessiman: Are you a lawyer?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, senator.

Senator Jessiman: I am looking at clause 1 on page 2 of the bill where it mentions a person "dependent on" the criminal. Does that mean a person who is economically dependent, or does that mean a person who requires information from him in order to do the story?

Mr. Wappel: It is a dependant: a child, a grandmother, a mother, someone who is dependent on that person.

Senator Jessiman: So when the bill mentions a person with whom the criminal collaborated, that refers to family members as well as the dependant?

Mr. Wappel: Correct, and the key thing is that they are collaborating. If those family members do not collaborate and write the work, then this bill would not involve them.

Senator Jessiman: What if a third party, then, not a family member or a person dependent on the criminal, writes the story?

Mr. Wappel: Nothing in this bill would affect that person's ability to do so.

Senator Jessiman: Even if he had collaboration from the person convicted?

Mr. Wappel: Correct. However, there is a proviso. Let us say a journalist interviews a notorious criminal and writes a book. The journalist would be free to find a publisher, sell the work, and make the money. Of course, the journalist did not commit the crime. If the journalist said, "I would like to write a story about your life. I would like to talk to you about the crimes you committed, and I will give you 10 per cent of my royalties," then that 10 per cent would be captured under clause 12.1. The amount going to the journalist would not be captured at all.

Senator Cogger: Assume a journalist went to see Clifford Olson and said, "I would like to write a story. You understand that under Mr. Wappel's bill, there is no way you can get any of that money. However, if you wish to cooperate, I agree to set up a trust fund for your two dependent children so that they can be put through school." Would that come under the bill? The dependent children would not cooperate or collaborate.

Mr. Wappel: I guess that would be a question of fact. In the event there was litigation to determine whether there was collaboration, the court could consider whether there was an intent to get around the spirit of the legislation, whether the suggestion came from the journalist, and all of the surrounding facts.

One other aspect is that any portion of the work that copyright law would otherwise deem to have been owned by Olson would, of course, be owned by the Crown. In such circumstances, the Crown could attempt to enforce its ownership of copyright by ensuring that such a agreement did not take place. The Crown could perhaps suggest that the money be given to victims.

Senator Cogger: I wish to explore that. Surely you cannot have a copyright to an untold or unpublished story.

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Senator Watt: Why not?

Senator Moore: Did you say you can or cannot?

Senator Cogger: You cannot.

Senator Moore: He has an unpublished work.

Mr. Wappel: I think the senator is referring to a story in one's mind.

Senator Cogger: Perhaps this matter is getting more complicated than I thought it would.

Mr. Olson is in jail.

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Senator Cogger: He presumably has a copyright or something. Homolka is in jail. Perhaps she has those pieces of paper. Under the Wappel bill, as a result of her sentence, that has reverted the Crown. If a journalist wanted to write her story, she could tell her story, but I assume neither she nor the journalist would have a copyright. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Senator, on page 2 of the bill, specifically clause 3, the amendment to the Copyright Act states:

12.1 (1) Where a work is created, prepared or published by or in collaboration with a person who has been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code that may be proceeded against by way of indictment, and the work is substantially based on the indictable offence or the circumstances of its commission, any copyright in the work that would otherwise vest in the convicted person --

-- that is all we are talking about --

-- shall belong to Her Majesty.

Senator Cogger: Instead of it being joint ownership between the author and the perpetrator of the crime, it would then become the author and the Crown.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Gigantès: Why the Crown?

Senator Jessiman: The Crown would only have one part. If the author is a third party, he is not covered by this bill, as I understand it. Let us say they were 50-50, and a published work brings in X number of dollars. The Crown gets half and the author gets half.

Mr. Wappel: The intent here is not to give the Crown anything more than the criminal would have but to give the Crown what the criminal would otherwise have.

Senator Jessiman: If this is passed, do you think that the three certificates you have shown us would then be deemed to be owned by the Crown?

Mr. Wappel: No, because this legislation is not retroactive. Generally speaking, we do not pass retroactive legislation. If this legislation is passed, it will apply to crimes for which people are convicted after the legislation has passed because every person convicted of an indictable offence would have, as part of their sentence, section 12.1 of the Copyright Act. However, it would not take us into the past because that would be retroactive, which is dangerous ground.

The Chairman: Would it not apply to someone who was already convicted, had not yet written about their crime, but wrote about it in the future?

Mr. Wappel: I am by no means a law professor, but my understanding is that this act would apply to criminals who are convicted of indictable offences after this law is passed. It would not apply retroactively to anyone who has been convicted of a crime, which would include the people I named. That just happens to be the way it is.

When you sponsor a Private Member's bill, there are only so many things you can do before it becomes absolutely impossible for anyone to consider it. One of them is telling the government how to spend money. I had to stay away from suggestions like a victims compensation fund. Another one is retroactive legislation because everyone, including myself, gets their backs up about retroactive legislation.

Senator Gigantès: Suppose a gentleman of the press decides to write about Clifford Olson, sees him, and says, "You cannot have any part of the copyright. I alone will have the copyright, and I will write the story." He writes the story. The journalist has a substantial advance and big sales. He decides, because he feels sorry for Clifford Olson's kids or grandchildren, to set up a trust fund. Do we consider that that trust fund for the grandchildren who have not collaborated with Mr. Olson should be seized by the Crown?

Mr. Wappel: That would be deemed to be proceeds of crime insofar as the criminal is concerned.

Senator Gigantès: The criminal does not receive anything.

Mr. Wappel: That is akin to an assassin saying, "Fine, give the money to my kids when I write the book about it." The money either represents the proceeds of crime or it does not. If there were proceeds of crime, they would be seized.

Senator Gigantès: The author says to Olson, "You will not have any part of the copyright -- nothing." He writes, and then out of the goodness of his heart he sets up a trust fund because he feels sorry for the kids who have such a horrible father. There is a trust fund for the kids, not set up through a deal between the journalist and Olson but simply because the journalist felt he wanted to help these kids get over the trauma of being children of such a monster. Will the money be seized by the Crown?

Mr. Wappel: I believe is answer is no.

Senator Gigantès: I do not understand that. Is that because the bill says "in collaboration with"?

Mr. Wappel: It is proceeds of crime. The bill talks about the creation of the work.It talks about depicting the actual offence, and it is based substantially on the commission of the offence.

There are two conditions. Let us use Clifford Olson and the crime of murder as an example. The offence is one that may be proceeded with by indictment. The proposed subsection applies to Olson, a member of his family, or a person dependent on him and with whom he collaborated in receiving or becoming entitled to the benefits of authoring works. Under the circumstances you set out, senator, where the children did not collaborate with their father, we simply have the windfall beneficiaries of the goodwill of the journalist. I do not think they would fall under that proposed subsection.

Senator Gigantès: When you refer to the proposed subsection, you are referring to a person convicted of an offence or a member of his family who has collaborated.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Gigantès: Or a person dependent on him with whom the person convicted collaborated. You need another who has collaborated to ensure that this does not happen.

Mr. Wappel: It refers to the person convicted of the offence, a member of his family, or a person dependent on him.

Senator Gigantès: Or a member of his family who has collaborated. In these things, a greedy Crown prosecutor might say no.

Mr. Wappel: I am not a legislative drafter, but there is only one comma in subparagraph (ii) of the proposed subsection, and it precedes the phrase "with whom the person convicted collaborated". I would say that this phrase then modifies the whole part that precedes it.

Senator Jessiman: I did not read it that way myself. I read it the way the senator is suggesting. You may be correct, though.

Mr. Wappel: Senators, if you can make it clearer, then, by all means, please do so.

Senator Gigantès: Legal drafting is a "some time" thing. On one occasion the deputy minister of justice and two assistant deputy ministers of justice appeared before us. We found a paragraph that was obscure and asked them to explain it to us. We received three different interpretations, one from each person. Senator Bryden said, "I could become a millionaire on this thing."

Senator Jessiman: You are satisfied that this is not intended to be retroactive. Have you been told that by someone?

Mr. Wappel: It is my understanding that unless it is specifically stated that legislation applies prior to its passage, it does not.

Senator Jessiman: There is no question that the actual writing of the story is not a criminal act. If the story is written and then it is contracted out with someone else to sell it, is that not under provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Wappel: Not really, because we are dealing with the criminal law and the consequences of criminal law.

Senator Jessiman: Would you agree with me that the act of writing a story, by anyone, is not a crime?

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Jessiman: Are you saying that if a criminal who was convicted of an indictable offence is writing the story, it is a crime?

Mr. Wappel: It is not a crime to write it, but it is deemed to be proceeds of crime in the same way, for example, that it is a perfectly legal contractual matter, provincially, to purchase a contract of life insurance.

Senator Jessiman: However, the criminal is benefiting directly. He is killing a person to receive that benefit.

Mr. Wappel: He may have killed the person because he hated him and forgot about the life insurance policy. It is only when he has nothing else to think about in prison that he remembers that he took out a $1 million life insurance policy, but we will still not permit him to collect that $1 million.

Senator Jessiman: Is that common law, or is that law that is applicable somewhere in statutes?

Mr. Wappel: That is common law.

Senator Jessiman: I know it is common law insofar as you cannot benefit from your crime. If you steal money and use it to buy something else, you are benefiting directly from that crime. Buying something with it also benefits you indirectly. However, taking out an insurance policy is not quite the same thing. I should like to find out more.

Mr. Wappel: There have been cases involving insurance policies.

Senator Gigantès: The insurance company will ensure that it is legal before they pay.

Mr. Wappel: It is in the common law. There was the famous case in the 1970s of a notorious murderer who was found guilty of the murder of his wife. He sued his insurance company civilly to collect the life insurance contrary to the centuries-old common law principle that you cannot benefit from your crime. The courts held that he was not entitled to collect on the insurance policy. At the time he took out the policy, it was a perfectly legal thing to do. He paid his premiums and everything else.

Can you imagine the effect on society if it would be permissible to collect on a life insurance policy after killing your spouse?

Senator Jessiman: Let us agree with you that the common law says that. However, it does not say that if you write a story about the crime, you cannot benefit from the story.

Mr. Wappel: That is right.

Senator Jessiman: If the common law does not think that is right, you are taking it a step further.

Mr. Wappel: No, the common law says that you cannot benefit from your crime. I am saying that writing a story substantially about a crime that you committed affords you a direct benefit from the crime. In other words, if you did not commit the crime, you could not write the story.

Senator Gigantès: You are not saying that writing the story is a crime; you are saying that making money out of writing the story is a crime.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Gigantès: If Clifford Olson wrote his story and said, "I do not want the copyright. I give this to the Library of Parliament," or whatever, and he sells it, you cannot stop that story from being published.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct. I suppose we could, but it is a matter of balancing of interests. At some point there will be a balancing of interests between how much we want to stop an individual from doing this and under what principles. I would argue that if we are banning a person from simply writing or talking, then we are into very serious ground and serious Charter ground. As a balanced approach, rather than banning a person from ever opening their mouth, we have the opportunity to do exactly as you said, senator -- that is, to purge their conscience or, for whatever reason, "donate their work" to the national archives. However, we are not prepared as a society to allow them to make money from that. That is the intent of the bill.

Senator Jessiman: You are saying there is no question under the Charter that you have the fundamental right and freedom of expression. You are saying that it is subject only to the reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Jessiman: You are saying that you think the author of a book by a third party -- I can perhaps go along with the criminal himself, but a third party gives me trouble because that is the business of being an author -- is not entitled to benefit financially because he collaborated with the criminal.

Mr. Wappel: No. They are entitled to benefit financially. It is the criminal with whom we are dealing.

Senator Jessiman: Yes.

Senator Gigantès: They must collaborate.

Mr. Wappel: Yes. Do not forget that proceeds of crime deals with mens rea, which is intent. If there is an intent to circumvent the law, (i) and (ii) are there to prevent the driving of a Mack truck through a loophole.

Senator Jessiman: If your father is a criminal, you cannot benefit from what he has done?

Mr. Wappel: No. If your father is a criminal and you write about his criminal activities without talking to him or collaborating with him, then you can receive the financial benefit.

It is clear that there is an easy way of getting around this bill. If a son goes to visit his father in jail and the father says -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- "Put your name on this book and we will split the money," because it is the "son's book", even though the father wrote it, who can prove it between father and son?

The idea is to try to prevent that loophole. In the future, there may be litigation about these things. That is well and good in a free and democratic society. On the facts of each case, the courts will decide what is right and just in a certain circumstance.

Senator Jessiman: Does any other jurisdiction have a similar law?

Mr. Wappel: The United States of America has a similar law, the Son of Sam law, and the press has dubbed this the Son of Sam law. He is the man who was killing everyone in New York City. He was then to receive a substantial amount of money to tell his story. Of course, the New York legislature passed a particular law in a hurry. I say, "Of course" because it was imminent and they wanted to block it. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States threw the law out -- not because it was unconstitutional to write such a law but because the law written was unconstitutional. Basically, the court told them to go back to the drawing board and write another one that would fall within their constitution. They have since done that, as far as I am aware.

Senator Jessiman: Does it go as far as yours does to include members of the family?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, I believe it does, but it does not use the copyright aspect of it, which would take it into the realm of international at law so that the Crown could enforce its rights in other countries.

Senator Cogger: We have been through this before. Myself and others have been receiving numerous letters about this. People are having difficulty with this bill and objections to it arise because people are saying, "Wait a minute. Writing a book is a perfectly legal and legitimate activity. Consequently, the profits derived from that activity are legal."

This ought to be compared to the laundering of money. Money is laundered by the creation of a legitimate activity with dirty money. We recognize that we must stop the legitimate activity because it was started with something entirely wrong. That is what we must look at here.

No one questions the legality of publishing a book, but channelling the funds back to the perpetrator of the crime would have the same effect as if we had allowed him to launder money.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct, senator. That is why the first part of the bill deals with proceeds of crime. Laundering of money is also in that section of the Criminal Code. It is perfectly legal to purchase a boat, a yacht or a farm, but if those items are purchased with ill-gotten moneys, such as from drug dealing, the legal activity is overturned and the items are seized because of the source of the money.

In this case, society finds it unacceptable that we incarcerate someone for committing a crime and then allow him or her to make money from writing about it.

Senator Jessiman: We already have penalties in place for the commission of crimes. This is adding something more.

Mr. Wappel: That goes to another argument. For example, a bank robber steals $10,000 and buries it under a rock. He is caught, convicted, and serves 15 years. He has done his time, paid his price, and then he digs up the money. He is not entitled to spend it even though he has served the full 15 years, because that is money that did not belong to him, that is money that he obtained by committing a crime.

I argue that it is not possible to write a first-person account of a crime unless you committed it. How much more direct can you be?

Senator Cogger: Mr. Wappel, have you read the book entitled Jack Rabbit Parole?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Senator Cogger: Does anyone here know whether that book would have been covered by this bill?

Mr. Wappel: I have been on talk shows with the gentleman who wrote that book. It is my information, although it may not be accurate, that the book is generally about his experiences within the justice system and that the crimes for which he was convicted form a portion, but not the substantial portion, of the work. He had to describe how he got into prison so he said that he committed certain crimes. Because the descriptions of the crimes that he committed are not substantially what the work is based on, this bill would not catch that book.

Senator Doyle: Mr. Olson has been your prime concern in this matter. You use as your example his three applications for copyright on his experiences. I am not an authority on copyright law, but if I recollect correctly, the last time I signed copyright papers I contracted with the publisher to produce a book which would, at least while it was in gestation, bear this title, that would be a work of non-fiction, and would undertake to describe a series of events and procedures. That did not mean the book was written. It meant that I could not go out and sell the same proposition to someone else without getting myself hauled into court. That, of course, also served as notice to someone else that if they were going to write a book in the same area, they probably should not use the title I had received for my work in that set of circumstances. That was about the only value of such a contract. Therefore, I do not attach of great deal of importance to copyright applications.

I do understand, from all the things I have read about Mr. Olson, that he adores publicity. He loves having his name in the paper. Psychiatrists have a term to describe that particular failing.

He has been quick to suggest that he might do all sorts of things, and then stands back and revels in the fact that he is being hated for it. However, I do not think he is an average, everyday criminal, and I do not think I can find any example of a man who has written a book about crimes that are awful, terrible and blood curdling and got away with it and, what is more, made a lot of money from it.

The books have been written. There is nothing to stop me from writing a book tomorrow about Clifford Olson and all of his crimes that have been detailed in courtrooms in this country. In fact, I would think a producer of a movie or a television program would be far more likely to hire an experienced author to write such a book. Yes, books are sometimes written in passion and I want to ask you about one that I am sure you have come across.

In 1966, a lady named Isabel Lebourdais wrote a book about the Steven Truscott case. Steven Truscott was a 14-year-old boy who was tried in adult court, convicted and sentenced to hang for a terrible murder. Lebourdais became interested in the trial and in his story. She read all the transcripts, all the newspaper articles, and then started a long series of visits to the prison in Aylmer, Ontario, where the man was incarcerated in the early stages of his sentence, because there was a committal to life in prison. She eventually wrote her book. The book was a sensation. Literally thousands of a articles were written about it.

There was no story on justice or the conduct of the justice system that more aggravated Canadians than that story that year.

In the midst of it, people started to call Ms Lebourdais and say that they wanted to contribute to his defence. What defence? He had no new trial. He had been to the court of appeal and they turned him down. However, she did open a bank account for Steven Truscott where people could deposit their dollars, and it was well advertised in the newspapers because this was a good thing to do at the time.

The book sold many copies. She made a fair bit of money. The legislation we have before us today prevents a person convicted of the offence or a member of his family or a person dependent on him with whom the convicted person collaborated, from receiving or becoming entitled to receive property, benefit or advantage.

What Steven Truscott received was the advantage that led him to the Supreme Court and another hearing. In addition, there was the money that had been collected on his behalf and which was saved until he was eventually released from prison.

I take the word "advantage" to mean a number of things that are not necessarily dollars. That is a long précis for which I apologize, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on "advantages."

Mr. Wappel: Isabel Lebourdais would not have been either a member of Mr. Truscott's family, nor a person dependent upon him. Therefore, that section would not have applied to Isabel Lebourdais. Isabel Lebourdais wrote a book and my bill would not have in any way prevented her from doing so. If the public wishes to contribute to a trust fund set up for a particular convicted person, this bill would not prevent anyone from contributing to such a trust fund.

In the specific case of Steven Truscott, I believe he still stands convicted of that offence, although he has been released from prison. If that is true, then, under this bill, if the circumstances occurred after this bill is passed, Truscott, being a convicted person, would not be able to write about the crime. Of course, if he was innocent, then he would not know about the crime, so he would not be writing about it any way.

Senator Cogger: Am I right in saying that he would be able to write about the crime but he would not be able to make any money off of it?

Mr. Wappel: That is correct. He could write about it but he could not make money from it.

Senator Doyle: Mr. Wappel, I am quite aware that Ms. Lebourdais was not a relative and therefore she would be excluded. I was concerned about your definition of the word "advantage." What if the father of Steven Truscott had written the book? It well might have been because he was a very articulate young man who was practically driven out of his mind during the trial. Although Truscott served an abbreviated sentence, there was some good that came out of the process because a great deal was done to tidy up the sloppy and almost criminal way in which his trial had been conducted. There was a lot of argument at the time that the Supreme Court was afraid to do otherwise.

Mr. Wappel: I am certainty not an expert on the Steven Truscott case. I understand your question about the definition of "advantage." You are correct; it is a broad term and would be designed to capture anything that would flow from the description of the work or the selling of a video which would be based substantially on the crime for which the person was convicted. Indeed, if, as part of that, an advantage flowed through a defence fund or something like that, an argument could be made that such a fund would form part of the "proceeds of crime" definition.

Senator Doyle: What is your thought about a person who is innocent of the crime for which he is charged but who writes or has written for him a book about the crime to try to prove his innocence?

Mr. Wappel: Senator, I do not wish to be nor even to appear to be flippant, but if a person is innocent of a crime for which they have been charged and convicted, they cannot write about it because they did not do it. All they can write about is their experience of being charged.

Senator Doyle: Oh, come on. What about Marshall? What about Morin?

Mr. Wappel: Marshall can talk about the circumstances of the trial. He can talk about what happened at the trial. He can talk about what happened to him. He can talk about how he was railroaded, but he could not possibly detail the circumstances of the crime in the first person because he did not commit the crime.

Senator Doyle: Marshall could.

Mr. Wappel: How? If he was not there, he would not know.

Senator Doyle: He was there and he saw the crime committed.

Senator Gigantès: They did not believe him when he said someone else did it.

Mr. Wappel: If he is innocent, as he is declared to be and as I understand it, then there is no prohibition on him writing anything or selling anything.

Senator Gigantès: What if he had written a book in jail while he was still convicted?

Mr. Wappel: Then, under this bill, he would not have been able to collect the proceeds. Because we are talking about money, after he is found innocent, one can account for the proceeds and then that money could be turned over to him because he is innocent.

If you stand convicted of a crime, society says you are guilty of that crime until such time as you demonstrate that you are not convicted of that crime, in the same way that, until you are convicted of that crime, society says you are innocent, no matter what it looks like. Only after you are convicted do you stand convicted by society.

Throughout the period that you are convicted, this bill would affect you. If you are a victim of a miscarriage of justice, then at the particular time that miscarriage of justice is brought to light and the person is declared innocent, then an accounting can take place of any profits that would have been seized as proceeds of crime and that money could then be turned over to that person.

Senator Gigantès: That is only if that money has been put in an invested trust fund waiting to see whether he is guilty or not.

Mr. Wappel: We are talking about the Crown.

Donald Marshall saw the crime. He could have described it, but they did not believe him. What if he wrote about it while convicted? Eventually, he was found innocent because the real criminal confessed. Meanwhile, his money has been seized. How does he get it back?

Mr. Wappel: At that point, because he is an innocent man and he did a perfectly legitimate thing, which innocent people are entitled to do, which is to profit from writing a book, then there would be an accounting from the person who owned the copyright, namely the Crown under this bill. It would be a matter of calculating, as courts have always done, the amount of the seized proceeds. It need not be a trust fund. It would simply be demonstrated how much money the Crown collected. There would be a calculation of interest as the courts do on a daily basis, and then there would be the payment to the innocent person.

Senator Doyle: That would be after his innocence had been established.

Mr. Wappel: Clearly, since until that time he is convicted.

Senator Doyle: There could be a time when they might want to hire lawyers, hire researchers, get help outside. You cannot get out of prison any other way that would last for any length of time.

Mr. Wappel: Are you suggesting that people who have been convicted should still be considered innocent?

Senator Gigantès: Some are.

Mr. Wappel: That is not the way our system works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Once you are found guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Senator Doyle: All courts can make a mistake.

Mr. Wappel: Absolutely, which is why we do not have the death penalty.

Senator Doyle: You want to close an escape hatch for a few mistakes, which is why I do not think we need your clause. It does not happen that much.

Mr. Wappel: Would you agree that a criminal should not profit from their crime in any way?

Senator Doyle: In a perfect world, yes.

Mr. Wappel: What about in the world of legislation?

Senator Doyle: This is not a perfect world. You need only belong to Parliament to understand that it is not a perfect world.

Mr. Wappel: I understand, yet we all try to work to make it better. I am hoping that this bill will make society better by not rewarding those people who have committed crimes by allowing them to profit from the telling of those crimes.

Senator Doyle: Would you find any fault with us if we found one or two safety hatches which would close the door to an iron-clad rule that no one should benefit in any way from the day he is locked up for the rest of his life?

Mr. Wappel: Senator, I would not find fault with any attempt to improve the bill. Obviously, every bill can be improved. Every bill is drafted by a human being; therefore, it is not perfect. If you can come up with some good suggestions to improve the bill without gutting or twisting its intent, which is the basic proposition that a criminal should not benefit from committing a crime, then I would be only too pleased to consider that suggestion.

Senator Doyle: I am not suggesting that I have those thoughts, but we do have lawyers on the committee.

Senator Gigantès: The Steven Truscott case is very important in discussing your bill because it was the money that became available that enabled him to hire the lawyers and mount the campaign to finally prove his innocence.

If he has no other money, how else can an innocent convicted man get the money than by saying to an author, "I will tell you my story; you publish it, and let me hire the lawyers to prove that I am innocent"?

Mr. Wappel: Forgive me. I am not completely familiar with all of the facts, but was he found to be innocent? It is my understanding that he is still attempting to have DNA evidence prove that he is innocent. I believe he still stands convicted, although I am not sure.

Senator Gigantès: Guy-Paul Morin is poor and without a mother who fights for him. He says, "I am innocent. I want to prove it. I don't have a penny." He calls a reporter and says, "Let's collaborate. I'll tell you my story, and then I can use the money to prove I am innocent." Supposing he is innocent, what do we do about that?

You mentioned the death penalty. I do not buy the business of the state having no business in killing someone. We send people to war. We could kill Clifford Olson and it would not give me any nightmares. However, we do not do it just in case someone is innocent. That is the only true justification for abolishing the death penalty, the telling argument, the one for which all of us who hate all those criminals who are guilty vote against the death penalty, as I do.

If the person is innocent, are you denying him a chance to make enough money to prove it?

Mr. Wappel: I can only respond that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We like to believe, although nothing is foolproof, that we have an excellent system of justice and that, in the vast majority of cases, the system works and is not biased. We can all cite aberrations, but we believe that --

Senator Gigantès: You are looking at one. I was convicted without hearing in a secret kangaroo court here in Canada. It took me three and a half years to get out from it. I was not even allowed to know what the accusation was. It happens.

Mr. Wappel: What law were you alleged to have breached?

Senator Gigantès: The Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Wappel: We can understand why it was in camera. I presume you had a lawyer.

Senator Gigantès: No, I was not even told of what I was guilty for three and a half years. Suddenly, surprise, without anyone telling me why or how, I was reinstated. However, in those three and a half years, I was wounded. They attached a notice to the personnel files of my brother and my wife, and they were never promoted. They did not remove those notices until 11 years later. Even though three years later I was cleared, they did not clear those who were not guilty of anything except being related to me. These things happen.

Mr. Wappel: Yes, they do.

Senator Gigantès: Being guilty until proven innocent might require the capacity to use a lawyer to prove yourself innocent. You need money to pay a lawyer. Clayton Ruby does not come for free.

Mr. Wappel: Not everyone can hire Clayton Ruby or Mr. Greenspan or anyone else. We like to think that our system is as fair as we can possibly make it under all the circumstances, bearing in mind that it is operated by human beings. The system we have presumes that you are innocent until you are proven guilty in accordance with law. Once you are proven guilty in accordance with law, you are guilty, and then it becomes incumbent upon you to prove you are innocent.

Senator Gigantès: You are assumed to be guilty. You are not necessarily guilty. There is a difference.

Senator Cogger: You are guilty. You are fooling around with words here. If someone is found guilty by a jury, are you telling me he is not guilty?

Senator Gigantès: We have cases where they were innocent.

The Chairman: Senators, can we agree to disagree on this for now and carry on with our questioning of the witness.

Senator Moore: Mr. Wappel, what would happen if a person writes about a crime after the bill came into effect but he was found guilty of the crime before the bill came into effect? Would the bill apply?

Mr. Wappel: The bill would only apply to anyone who writes a book about a crime for which they were charged from the day the bill receives Royal Assent.

Senator Moore: Charged and convicted.

Mr. Wappel: Not necessarily. If they were charged and later found to be innocent, they could do what they want, such as sell a book.

Let us say the bill passes tomorrow, and they were charged tomorrow. The trial may not occur for two years. They write the book, they make the profits, and two years later they are found guilty. We would want to be able to seize that money because they are guilty of the offence, so proposed section 12.1(2) of the Copyright Act provides that it would be applicable from the date of the charge, provided of course that the person is subsequently found guilty.

It would not affect anyone who, shall we say, wrote a book and was trying to make profit from it prior to the passage of the law. It would have to be a person who is convicted of a crime after the passage of Bill C-220.

Senator Doyle: I would draw a parallel with the amendments to the faint hope clause which is what brought Mr. Olson back into the public eye. He was able to get there because he had been subject to a different time period prior to the amendment being introduced.

Senator Gigantès: I have a supplementary.

This provision kicks in when he is charged. The trial, you said, might not take place for two years. Somebody is charged and two years later he is found to be innocent. During those two years, he is innocent, and during those two years, you seize the proceeds of any book he writes. He may want to write an "instant book" so as to get money to pay for his lawyers but you seize that money the minute he is charged even though he may be wrongly charged.

Mr. Wappel: That is true.

Senator Gigantès: We all know that happens often.

Mr. Wappel: Again, it is a matter of balancing interests. Let us take the case of Paul Bernardo. If he happened to make a copy of those tapes with which we are all familiar, and if they were not all found by the police or by his lawyer who then turned them over to the police, and if he kept one and sold it to Hard Copy in the United States for $100,000 between the time he was charged and the time he was convicted, two things can happen. Either he then becomes convicted and is sentenced to life and is allowed to keep the money because he sold the tape before he was convicted, or the law applies from the time he was charged, in which case the money could be seized and he would not be allowed to keep it after he was convicted. If the money were seized, and it was later found that he was innocent, then the money would have to be returned with a due accounting by the then owner of the copyright, the Crown.

Senator Moore: Further to what Senator Doyle said, with respect to a conviction being subsequently overturned, would it be useful to consider putting in another clause that provided that the act would not apply to a person convicted of an offence that may be proceeded against by indictment upon that conviction being subsequently overturned? Is there something I missed there?

Mr. Wappel: You will notice that in the very last clause I have added a subclause for greater certainty, so one could presumably add a clause for greater certainty that said that if a person is subsequently exonerated of a crime for which he was convicted, these sections do not apply and do not apply from the time of the charge. That could be done, but it is my understanding that because the person must be convicted of the crime, if they are subsequently exonerated, then they have never been convicted of the crime and therefore the law would not apply to them in any event. However, if there were some need to have greater certainty to ensure that, that to me seems to be a reasonable suggestion.

The Chairman: Further to that, if a person is charged and, say, two years later the charges are dropped, but at that point the whole issue is old news and he can no longer sell the book that he was intending to write to raise money to cover the expenses that he has had in those two years, how would your law then apply?

Senator Moore: Is he writing about the process?

The Chairman: He is writing about the fact he is innocent.

Mr. Wappel: A person is charged with a crime --

The Chairman: Often charges are dropped later on.

Mr. Wappel: -- and then he wants to write about that? Of course he can write about that, as Senator Cogger has pointed out, but during this period of time he would not be able to profit from it. However, you are now asking about a situation where, in the meantime, charges would be withdrawn?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: It is very difficult for the Crown to be involved until there is a conviction, but then you can go back and capture any ill-gotten gains once there is a conviction because the time-frame begins from the time the person is charged.

The way I envisage the act working, if the person were to sell the work, put the profit in the bank and then is later convicted, then the true owner of the copyright, which at that point is the Crown because of the conviction, could then seize the bank account or prevent the video from being shown or whatever at the time of the conviction. That is how I envisage it working.

Senator Jessiman: This passed unanimously in the House of Commons, is that correct?

Mr. Wappel: Twice.

Senator Jessiman: Gordon Kirkby was not convinced on this, was he?

Mr. Wappel: He was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in the 35th Parliament.

Senator Jessiman: Was he not re-elected?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Senator Jessiman: You had not convinced him, though.

Mr. Wappel: The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Justice do not like this bill. That is not news. They advanced the arguments that I dealt with in my submissions to you, senators. They advanced them in the justice committee and they were turned down in the justice committee as well.

Senator Jessiman: Where does the Canadian Bar Association stand on this matter?

Mr. Wappel: I do not know.

Senator Jessiman: Have you not asked them to appear?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Senator Jessiman: Are we asking them to appear?

The Chairman: They have expressed an interest so I am assuming we will ask them. I have not seen a list yet of the people who wish to appear before the committee, but Senator Cogger, Senator Lewis and I will be going over the list and making it as broad as possible.

Senator Jessiman: I do not think you disagree that the bill does violate the freedom of expression in section 2 but you say it is saved by section 1.

Mr. Wappel: I do disagree. I do not think it violates freedom of expression at all because the criminal is completely free to express himself. There is a difference between the right to express yourself and the ability to make a profit from doing so, and that I do not think is enshrined in the charter.

Senator Jessiman: So you are not depending on section 1 of the charter to save this?

Mr. Wappel: That is correct. That is my fallback position, if the main argument, which is that it does not breach section 2, were to fail. For example, the main argument of the Crown regarding mandatory retirement was that it does not breach section 15, but if it does breach section 15, it is saved by section 1, and the Supreme Court found exactly that mandatory retirement breaches section 15, because it is age discrimination, yet it is saved by section 1 for the greater good of society.

Senator Jessiman: I can go along with you when you are dealing with the criminal himself. I cannot really agree when you bring in his family or people who are dependent on him. I just do not see how you can say it applies to people who have never been convicted of anything. They are writing a book. Sure, it is in collaboration with the criminal but it is their book. How do you answer that and why is that included? Was it your suggestion?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, and it is to prevent the loophole that I described, whereby the criminal would use his family as a vehicle to get around the law by simply appending the name of the family to a work created by the criminal so as to say, "It was not done by me, it was done by my family," and therefore let them make the profit. That to me seems like a very gross and obvious loophole, which I have now put on the record for any criminal in the future who cares to read it.

If we do not have that in there, that will be an obvious way for people to get around the legislation. That is why it is there. It is not there to in any way punish anyone; it is there to prevent someone from circumventing the law.

If the family does not collaborate with the criminal, then you are absolutely right, senator, the criminal has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Senator Jessiman: They cannot get the information unless they talk.

Mr. Wappel: They can read the trial transcripts and do everything else that a journalist would do otherwise. A journalist can write a book even if they do not have access to the criminal. They can make money with that book even though they do not have access to the criminal. They can use all the other sources. They can even be the victim of the criminal, as I indicated with an incest victim, provided they do not collaborate.

Senator Cogger: Mr. Wappel, like my colleague Senator Jessiman, I have difficulty with the notion of the family and dependents, et cetera. Rightly, I think that must run contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You are trying to encompass people who have done nothing, who have not been convicted of any crime, and who in the eyes of society are as clean as a whistle. Their fault is that they are related or dependent upon a convicted criminal. I have a problem with that.

Mr. Wappel: Senator, if you can offer a suggestion as to how to plug the loophole I have shown you with different wording, I would be delighted to consider it.

Senator Cogger: We are talking about imperfect laws and an imperfect society. The people committing horrific crimes presumably are not also pillars of society who have very normal lives and well-organized families. They may have a common-law spouse somewhere and two or three children all over the map. You would then say they are not covered because, in the sense of our laws, they are not members of the family, or are they?

Mr. Wappel: For income tax purposes they are covered.

The fact is that Clifford Olson did have a wife and did direct the RCMP to pay her $100,000 to obtain certain information leading to his conviction.

Senator Doyle: Leading to the finding of the bodies.

Senator Gigantès: You are saying it is okay for a journalist to collaborate with Clifford Olson to get his story for the benefit of the journalist. What about a member of Clifford Olson's family who happens to be a journalist and wants to write the story about his monstrous father? If he interviews him as any other journalist would, that is not okay?

Mr. Wappel: That is correct.

Senator Gigantès: Suppose he had a son who is an honest journalist, and he goes to jail to talk to his father to write the story; is that okay?

Mr. Wappel: Again, I can only repeat the intent of this bill, which is to prevent the use of family members to circumvent the intent of the law.

Senator Gigantès: How can you prove that Clifford Olson used that family member?

Mr. Wappel: Of course, this would be a matter for a court to determine in litigation between the supposed owner of the copyright, which in this case would be the Crown. As you know, when the Crown applies to seize the proceeds of crime, there is a hearing to determine whether or not they are proceeds of crime. At that point, presumably the Crown would be arguing in your circumstances, senator, that this person fits because there are the proceeds of crime. The person would be arguing, no, it does not fit because it is not an attempt to get around the law. It is because he is a journalist and wanted to do X, Y or Z. Then it would be up to a court to determine whether the proceeds were proceeds of crime.

Senator Gigantès: I have the same problems as Senator Cogger regarding freedom of speech. I still have a very serious problem with someone who is charged because he is suspected of being guilty. The charges may be dropped two or three years later because they find he is not guilty. During those two or three years, you have not permitted that person who is innocent -- not yet convicted, only charged -- from collecting money for his own defence. That bothers me.

The Chairman: Mr. Wappel, you mentioned the Berne Convention. Let us not talk about Clifford Olson because none of this applies to him.

Mr. Wappel: Correct.

The Chairman: He is already in jail. I really would prefer not to have this whole thing tagged to his name.

Suppose a future multiple murderer wants to publish a book. Being clever, he decides to do it in the United States rather than in Canada. I understand that under the Berne Convention each person must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting states as that state grants to the works of its own nationals. In Canada, any proceeds of that publication would be seized by the Crown. In fact, the copyright would be seized by the Crown.

In the United States, let us suppose he is able to publish. The laws of the United States then would apply under the Berne Convention. I have a great deal of difficulty thinking that this bill actually would prevent publication.

Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, who would be the owner of the copyright? The owner of the copyright would be the Crown.

The Berne Convention requires the United States government to give the owner of the copyright -- in this case the Crown -- the same rights it gives to its citizens who are owners of copyright. It prevents other people from making money on works owned by them, or from showing programs or videos from works made by them.

The Chairman: The owner of the copyright under American law would not be the Crown, and this copyright is in the United States.

Mr. Wappel: No, because the United States would recognize the copyright laws of our jurisdiction, just as we would recognize the copyright laws of the United States. If someone can show that he owns the copyright in the United States to a particular work, then he expects to be treated the same way as the owner of a Canadian copyright if he comes here.

Under this bill, our domestic law would deem the Crown to be the owner. The Crown, as owner, would ask to be treated in the same way as American owners under the Berne Convention. That would permit the Crown, as owner and as distinct from author -- and I pointed out the certificate -- to apply for an injunction to prevent the showing of an objectionable video or to apply to a civil court to seize the bank account of the criminal who improperly sold the work. Since this proposed section would form part of the sentence, the criminal would know that he would not have the right to do this because he would not have the copyright. By selling the work, he would in effect be defrauding whoever he is paying because he does not have a copyright to sell or to trade in the United States.

The answer is that because the Crown owns the copyright under the domestic law of Canada, the domestic law of Canada is accepted by the United States. It is up to contracting countries to decide who the owner is and who the author is, not the Berne Convention. The Crown would have to be treated in the same way in the United States as nationals of the United States when applying to the copyright courts to enforce their ownership of a copyright. That is how it would work.

The Chairman: Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention states that:

Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

Mr. Wappel: Correct, and the author would be the Crown.

The Chairman: The author would be the Crown?

Mr. Wappel: The owner would be the Crown; the author would be the person creating it. For the purposes of the Convention, the owner becomes the author under that section. You can assign your rights as author, or you can have your rights as author taken away. I have pointed out that this is so under sections 12 and 13 of the Copyright Act in certain deemed circumstances. For all the purposes of being an author, the owner then steps into the shoes of the author. That is how it works out.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Senator Jessiman: In practice, do you envision what would happen in the following circumstance, namely, the person has now been convicted of an indictable offence? Does the Crown or the judge explain at the hearing that a conviction is being registered under this law, or is everyone supposed to know the law?

Mr. Wappel: It would be deemed to form part of the conviction. I would presume that the judge would say, "Your sentence is four years in prison. Section 12(1) of the Copyright Act applies to you and you do not own any right of ownership in any work you create if it substantially deals with the crime of which you are convicted." Presumably, there would be a one-paragraph explanation and a certificate of conviction would indicate section 12(1) of the Copyright Act as well as the prison sentence that the person received.

Senator Jessiman: Have you talked to Crown prosecutors or the Attorneys General about that?

Mr. Wappel: Criminal law comes under federal jurisdiction but it is administered by the provinces. I would assume that if this law came into effect the Attorneys General of the various provinces and territories would sit down with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and do whatever is necessary to do, as with all changes to the Criminal Code, to ensure that the intent is met.

The Chairman: Another thing that concerns me is the broad net that this bill casts. It does not catch only multiple murderers. For example, if cheating at bingo was an indictable offence it would catch someone who was cheating at bingo, found to be guilty and wrote a book about cheating at bingo. Do you see this bill as only applying to these heinous crimes that we are all so offended by or to the lesser degree crimes also?

Mr. Wappel: The proposition I am putting forward is that any criminal should not benefit from his or her crime. If a multiple murderer is not allowed to benefit under that scenario, then it does not seem logical to permit an armed robber who is convicted of one offence to write a book about it. The principle is offended in both cases, namely, that if you have committed a crime you should not make money from the commission of that crime.

It is also very unlikely <#0107> although, I suppose it is possible -- that anyone would want to author a book substantially based on cheating at bingo because the likelihood of it being published is probably nil.

The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I wish to thank you very much, Mr. Wappel, for coming before us this evening.

We now have government business that is moving through this committee so that this bill, by convention, will drop to the bottom of the list. However, we intend to continue to consider it. Whenever there is time available and an opportunity to do so, we will slot in witnesses to be heard. At the end of the process, will you appear once again before this committee to conclude our consideration of the bill?

Mr. Wappel: I would be delighted to do so. No doubt I will be following the proceedings and reading the transcripts carefully. Because of the great speed with which you convened this hearing, I did not have an opportunity to bring my copyright advisor with me, for example. He is a copyright lawyer in this city. There are also others who I would then, with permission, be able to bring with me to answer specific questions, for example, on the Berne Convention, and other things. Yes, I should be delighted to accept your invitation.

I have enjoyed a very challenging session and I thank you for putting me through my paces. It was enjoyable.

The Chairman: Thank you once again.

The committee adjourned.