Copyright Amendment Bill & Performers Protection Amendment Bill: public hearings

NCOP Trade & Industry, Economic Development, Small Business, Tourism, Employment & Labour

21 February 2023
Chairperson: Mr M Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video (Part 1)

Video (Part 2)

Video (Part 3)

The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, Economic Development, Small Business, Tourism, Employment and Labour met on a virtual platform to conduct public hearings on the Performers Protection Amendment Bill [B 24D - 2016] and Copyright Amendment Bill [B 13D – 2017].

Twelve presentations were scheduled although one had to be delayed. Several presentations were made jointly by groups with similar interests, but all presenters were well-prepared and each conveyed a very specific position. Some Members welcomed those that gave it a reason to take the Bills forward. Presentations by artists were passionate, foreseeing a great improvement in their financial situation as a result of the proposed Bills. Their presentations were enthusiastically welcomed. Several of the presenters gave specific legal and financial reasons relating to specific clauses for cautioning against adopting the Bills, especially in the current format. BlindSA warned that the amendments did not fully comply with the judgement of the Constitutional Court or with the Marrakesh Treaty.

Among others, eMedia, the South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law, the Association of Communication & Advertising and the Commercial Producers Association of South Africa, and the Independent Black Filmmakers Collective, Animation SA and Independent Producers Organisation presented details of the harm that the Bills would present to the industry. A concern was the power of the Minister to determine royalties and the restriction on parties’ freedom to contract which raised constitutional questions. Ephemeral rights were a special concern to eMedia while the advertising executives warned that advertising could not be treated as a homogeneous industry. Evidence of large sums that were paid to actors in successful commercials and films was presented with dire warnings that those earnings would recede. The Dramatic and Artistic and Literary Rights Organisation supported concerns about fair use and that the section on royalties needed more work. The lack of freedom of panorama was raised by Wikipedia as it excluded the inclusion of recent works of art and monuments created during democracy as incidental backgrounds to photographs. A professor of Intellectual Property supported some of the major concerns about the Bills. She did not believe that the move away from fair dealings was justified but believed that the Bills could be salvaged to avoid further waste of money and time.

The presenters towards the end of the day, the South African Democratic Teachers Union, the Library & Information Association of South Africa and Artists Unite strongly supported the adoption of the Bills as it was essential to eliminate apartheid legislation. The Bills aligned with South African law with other progressive copyright regimes and international treaties and introduced the limitation and exceptions that many developing countries had been enjoying for years. They went a long way to the redress of omissions, restrictions and imbalances in the current copyright regime. Artists Unite thanked the government for the Bills.

Only questions of clarity were permitted and there were very few questions. One Member noted that eMedia considered giving the Minister the power to determine royalties was a massive over-reach and asked whether eMedia would consider legal action should it remain in the Bill. The Committee would be dealing with the Expropriation Bill: what was eMedia’s view on Government being enabled to expropriate Intellectual Property? He asked if the artists were arguing that all artists should get the same royalty or whether the reward should be based on the success of the work. Member also asked what form of challenges people with disability were facing and how, if the Copyright Amendment Bill were amended, they would benefit from it. eMedia was asked about ownership and control and whether the two sections were an existential threat to the media. Would the intervention by the Minister not protect rights that might not have been captured by the Act? Should the Act not be brought into line with international law?

The Committee arranged a further two days of public hearings.

Meeting report

Election of Acting Chairperson
The Committee Secretary informed Members that the Chairperson, Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape), had submitted a standing apology as he had just undergone an operation. The Committee needed to elect an Acting Chairperson.

Mr M Dangor (ANC, Gauteng) nominated Mr M Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) as Acting Chairperson because he was the Chairperson of the sister Committee.

Ms M Moshodi (ANC, Free State) said that she would second the nomination of Mr Mmoiemang. She wished the Chairperson a speedy recovery.

The Secretary noted that Mr M Mmoiemang was duly elected as the Acting Chairperson of meetings and that it was in order for him to continue acting until the Chairperson returned.

Mr Dangor raised the matter of the study tour and suggested that the United Kingdom be taken off the schedule so that the Committee could get the trip going.

The Secretary stated that this item would be dealt with at the meeting on the following day.

Opening Remarks
The Acting Chairperson introduced the topic of the public hearings on the Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) and the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill (PPAB). He informed the Members that each presenter would have 30 minutes to make their presentation. That would be followed by questions of clarity only by Members. He requested that there be no discussion as that would take place within the Committee environment.

Ms Philippa Rafferty, Group Executive Legal and Business Affairs, eMedia Investments, was accompanied by legal advisors, David Feinberg, Partner at Rosengarten & Feinberg and Daniel Basckin, Lawyer, Rosengarten & Feinberg.

Ms Rafferty presented the background to the media company and explained that eMedia had a wide range of interests in broadcasting and content production which was influenced by the two Bills. eMedia welcomed the modernisation of the legislation While technological advancements should have an impact on policy and legislation, he stressed that any new laws should not significantly reduce the rights of broadcasters and copyright owners in South Africa, or negatively affect the commercial viability of broadcasting and the creation of copyrighted works.

Mr Fineberg explained that eMedia had submitted a very lengthy written submission which he could not cover in the limited time available. He would, therefore, only present comments on the value chain in relation to the two Bills under discussion. The CAB and PPAB were incongruent in dealing with performer remuneration. He proposed that section 8A of the CAB should be removed, and performers' rights should be regulated by the Performers' Protection Act. He stated that the decision to enforce a royalty for all performers would not resolve the problems of under-rewarded performers and that the section had to be scrapped and rewritten. He expressed concern about section 39 of the CAB which assigned powers to the Minister to determine, inter alia, the terms of such agreements and the royalties payable to parties. The restriction on parties’ freedom to contract should be removed. Provisions relating to compulsory reassignment and limiting contractual rights should be removed.

Mr Basckin explained ephemeral rights and addressed them in section 12(5)(a) and (b). He recommended an extension of rights in that respect. He recommended the opportunity be taken to extend the rights beyond six months (only if it were of historical merit). Broadcasters should be allowed to store broadcasts indefinitely and any rebroadcast of a broadcast that featured an ephemeral work should not be subject to the consent of the owner, but rather compatible with fair practice.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson called for questions of clarity.

Mr T Brauteseth (DA, KwaZulu-Natal) agreed that giving the Minister the power to determine royalties was a massive over-reach. If that remained in the Bill, would eMedia consider legal action? The following day, the Committee would be dealing with the Expropriation Bill. What was eMedia’s view on Government being enabled to expropriate IP?

The Acting Chairperson noted the presenters had tried to explain the value chain, i.e. production company would be given all rights and section 3(a) would be an interference with the rights and the expectation of work. He asked about ownership and control and whether the two sections were an existential threat to the media. Did he not think the intervention by the Minister would protect rights that might not have been captured by the Act? Should the Act be brought into line with international law?

Ms Rafferty responded to Mr Brauteseth. The Bills affected eTV, eSatTV, OpenView, eVOD and a host of eMedia interests. It would affect DSTV. She was sorry to say that it was kind of irrational and it would certainly be something that eMedia would contemplate legal action over. Concerning the second question around the Expropriation Bill and expropriation of intellectual property, that was also a serious, serious concern for broadcasters because, as she had explained, a lot of the assets of a broadcaster are tied up in IP itself. The current form of the Expropriation Bill would have a chilling effect on the commercial viability of being able to do productions, and that would be a very serious threat that eMedia would have to have to consider how to deal with.

Mr Feinberg responded to the Acting Chairperson. Although, as a general proposition, some form of political intervention would be required to support some actors, the manner in which it should be dealt with would not be viable or a suitable remedy if royalties were determined by the Minister. The intention was good but the solution was not viable. Section 8(a) and section 3(a) posed existential threats to the media. It could spell an early death for any work and that had a chilling effect on the industry.

BlindSA and Section 27
Mr Jace Nair, CEO, BlindSA, began by playing two short video clips before raising his points. He said that the organisation was generally in favour of the Copyright Amendment Bill but some amendments were required. The focus of the submission was on shortcomings, based on the CAB, the Constitutional Court Judgement of 21 September 2022 and the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty, to facilitate access to published works for blind and print-impaired persons. BlindSA recommended that the Select Committee amended the CAB’s definition of accessible format copy to that of the Constitutional Court judgement and in conformity with the Marrakesh Treaty. It was time to end the book famine and Braille was not a crime.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson summed up what he had heard and asked what BlindSA was asking of the Committee.

Mr Nair responded that his organisation was simply requesting direct access to books and printed material at the same time and same price as anyone else could obtain a book. It could provide a niche marketing opportunity for someone in the publishing fraternity.

Ms S Boshoff (DA, Mpumalanga) said, via the chat box, that going through with those two Bills would be screwing writers, musicians, filmmakers and academics. It would allow the government to use bits of textbooks so that it did not need to pay the textbook writer for the work.

Ms B Mathevula (EFF, Limpopo) asked, also in the chat box, what form of challenges people with disability faced previously. If the Bill was amended, how would they benefit from it?

Mr Nair said that 0,5% of published works were available in an accessible format which limited access to university and gaining qualifications and thus limited people who were blind. Some blind people had achieved success but they had received support from family. Those without such support could not access good jobs and contribute significantly to the economy and the tax base. Fewer than 10% of authors had given permission for adaptation of their work. The passing of the legislation would bring an end to the book famine and decriminalise those who were adapting material without authorisation.

Ms Boshoff asked whether BlindSA supported the principle of fair use.

Mr Nair confirmed that his organisation supported fair use.

Wikipedia South Africa
Mr Douglas Scott, a representative of Wikipedia SA, a non-profit organisation that supported unpaid volunteers, stated that his main concern regarding CAB was freedom of panorama or photographic restrictions. Photographs could not be taken of recently built publicly visible works of art because the copyright had not expired. Images of any building or work of art for which the copyright had expired could be photographed and used, e.g. on Wikipedia. The copyright situation was unclear in SA and therefore Wikipedia allowed backgrounds to photographs that showed historical, colonial buildings, statues, etc. but Wikipedia could not allow modern work depicting democratic South Africa because of the lack of freedom of panorama.

There were no questions for Wikipedia.

The South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law (SAIIPL)      
Mr Stephen Hollis, Partner at Adam & Adams and a representative of SAIIPL, stated that the Institute had submitted a document containing 100 pages, divided into 28 thematic points. The Bills were problematic to a greater or a lesser extent while some topics necessary to take copyright into the digital age were not included in the Bills. As the points could not be addressed in the National Assembly due to the restrictive process following the remittance of the Bills, the Institute had been obliged to raise the points at that stage with the NCOP. He proposed extensive amendments to the Bills and perhaps even a replacement of the current Copyright Act.

SAIIPL recommended that the Bills be rejected and that they be allowed to lapse in Parliament and that revision of the Acts took place in two stages: The first stage was to amend the Copyright Act in limited respects and replace the Performers’ Protection Act.  That could be done swiftly. The second stage would be an in-depth revision of the Copyright Act, possibly leading to a replacement of the current Act.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson noted Mr Hollis’ concerns. He appreciated the thrust of his presentation but informed Mr Hollis that there had been studies. He noted the concerns around the set of permissions to be obtained and the quite detailed way he had identified subjects that had not been covered by the copyright amendment. He allowed Mr Hollis to comment.

Mr Hollis stated that things like adapting musicians’ rights to provide similar to other artists did not work because each group of artists was highly individual. One simply could not equate the work and methodology of a performer with a musician, etc. In addition, the 25 years of copyright limitation, limited the ability of a musician to negotiate rights with a company that would be managing its income from a project over a long period of time, thereby limiting a musician’s rights to get involved in projects that required a longer contract than 25 years. He explained how it would be impossible to get rights from every single person involved in a film, i.e. from actors to musicians, digital developers, extras, and so on. The rigid legislative framework and the Minister’s powers damaged investor confidence and would not bring large global projects to SA, causing immense economic harm to SA. The Bill raised the risk level of SA from a legal copyright perspective to the extent that SA would no longer be a favoured destination. The Bills did not uplift the creative artists and their value in the creative value chain or provide a fairer distribution of wealth. Despite what had been said, the SA fair use mechanism was much broader than any other fair use environment in the world, including the USA. There were no counter-checks and balances in the SA Bills.

Association of Communication and Advertising (ACA) & Commercial Producers Association (CPA)
Mr Leo Manne, Managing Director: Net#work BBDO, representing ACA, presented on the business of the organisation and the interest it had in the Bills. He was uncertain about how the proposed changes would affect the industry that he represented. How ACA would report as directed in the Bill, was unclear and he was uncertain that it could be done and that members of ACA might find themselves criminalised. He reminded Members that advertising could not be treated as a homogeneous industry.

Mr Manne said that the IPO (Independent Producers Organisation), IBFC (Independent Black Filmmakers Collective) and Animation South Africa, join other industry organisations and sectors in unanimously calling for these Bills to be rejected. They were fundamentally flawed, fraught with unintended consequences and open to a Constitutional Court challenge. The immense economic harm they would bring to all in the Creative Industries could not be addressed by way of some minor amendments. They need to be redrafted following proper local and international research and real consultation with industry bodies.

Ms Bobby Amm was the Executive Officer at CPA, which produced commercial advertisements on television. Section 8(a) was of particular concern to her organisation. The Gauteng Legislature had stated that, for the first time, creators would be paid royalties but she provided evidence that royalties had always been paid for all commercials. She explained that SA attracted a lot of work from international commercial producers. She had submitted the contracts that CPA used, noting that if the Minister set rates, that would be deemed anti-competitive and would not be permitted. Rates were different for international commercials. Daily rates for an adult would range between R12 000 and R16 000. There was also a usage fee for using an image. If the commercial were used worldwide, a person could earn R80 000 for a day’s work.

The organisations supported the call to review the Bills.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson summed up what had been said in the presentation. He said that the Committee was comfortable with the thrust of the presentation and understood the points being made.

Mr Manne pleaded that all creative industries not be seen as homogeneous.

Dramatic and Artistic and Literary Rights Organisation (DALRO)
Mr Lazarus Serobe, Managing Director, DALRO, stated that DALRO supported the comments of Mr Hollis on behalf of SAIIPL and the position of ACA and CPA. He explained the role of DALRO and referred Committee Members to DALRO’s written submission. He referred to various sections of that submission that showed why he was concerned about the CAB, including the differences between the use of fair use in the USA and fair use in the Bills, as well as points of confusion in the CAB where stakeholders could not agree on the meaning contained in the clauses. That already suggested that serious problems would arise when people interpreted the Amendments differently.

Mr Serobe concluded that, although there had been key improvements in the Resale Royalty Right provisions, DALRO submitted that more work needed to be done to make them effective and to improve the position of visual artists.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson provided a summary of the oral submission.

Ms Boshoff agreed with the concerns raised by Mr Serobe.

The Committee took a break before returning to hear the last oral submissions of the day.

Independent Black Filmmakers Collective (IBFC); Animation SA (ASA); Independent Producers Organisation (IPO)
Ms Azania Muendane, Co-Chairperson, IBFC, stated that the IPO, IBFC, and ASA represented almost all those companies and individuals responsible for all work generated in the South African audiovisual sector and who attracted billions in Foreign Direct Investment and taxes paid throughout the direct, indirect and induced value chain. 67% of below-the-line production spending flowed to other sectors, rapidly spreading funds throughout the wider economy during the short shooting period of the production. A major $220 million budget film spent an average of $10 million per week during the 16-week shoot. However, 9/10 productions did not make a profit. She presented the high employment rate and foreign investment in the industry but warned of a drop of 67% from 2021.

Ms Trish Downing, Executive Director, IPO, presented figures and statistics relating to the job creation in the industry and the amount of money that the industry brought to the country in economic activity, jobs, taxes and tourism. She pleaded with Members not to believe the myths around the Bills. She assured the Committee that the Bills would destroy work and everyone would get poorer, including the creatives who would no longer have work. Fair use in the Bill was a hybrid mess.

Mr Nick Cloete, National Chairperson, ASA, pointed to inclusions in the Bill that would have consequences contrary to the intended impacts. He called for the Bills to be rejected as they were fundamentally flawed, fraught with unintended consequences and open to a Constitutional Court challenge. They would bring immense economic harm to all in the Creative Industries that could not be allayed by way of some minor amendments. They need to be redrafted following proper local and international research and real consultation with industry bodies.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson stated that Members had gone through the presentation. He highlighted several things he had heard. The presenters clearly stated that the government's initiative to reform the outdated Copyright Act must be appreciated, but several areas of concern were listed, relating to the different market realities and established business practices. Concerning the issue of a contract, they indicated that space was invaded and one of the issues raised was the issue of enforcement. He asked if he had correctly captured the thrust of the presentation and what the point was in criticising enforcement.

Ms Muendane agreed that the Acting Chairperson had, essentially, captured the salient points of the presentation. Nick Cloete would elaborate.

Mr Cloete explained that when it came to fair use, everyone said that it was a contention between fair use and fair dealing, but the truth was that when they referred to fair use, it was not fair use as commonly implied in other jurisdictions; there were very important and salient differences. There was an overbroad and over-extended list of exceptions and limitations, particularly copyright exceptions, which was going to be a big, big problem and was going to create all kinds of legal uncertainty. People talked about the tribunals they could access but it did not afford anyone access to the advocates and attorneys they needed to represent them, and therein lay the most expensive thing. It would be absolutely impossible for those who did not have the means to pay to protect and enforce their copyrights. That was to the detriment of those who were disadvantaged and it was going to put them at the worst disadvantage. Unlike Fair Dealing, you could not tell someone to cease and desist utilising your copyright; they could continue to do so until the courts made a ruling. So it was not something that at all benefits creatives, not in the least.

The Acting Chairperson said Mr Cloete could rest assured that the Committee understood where he was coming from.

South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU)              
Mr Mugwena Maluleke, General Secretary, SADTU, focused on the use of materials for teaching and learning purposes. He asserted that the Bills were essential as the current Acts were written during the apartheid era and had to be replaced as a matter of absolute urgency. The current Act was an instrument of the apartheid government to suppress Black people. Hence, SADTU believed that supporting the Bills was essential to turning their backs on apartheid. However, section 12 A to D remained of some concern to SADTU. He said that he had also submitted a letter from Education International, an international teacher union that supported SADTU's position. He spoke of a meeting at the University of Johannesburg where an attempt was made to understand the differences between those who supported and opposed the Bills. SADTU believed that the new Bills were essential to ensure rights to education and to liberate students from poverty. The time for change was immediate and the Bills had to be adopted to end colonial education and to support black children as black people did not own the publishing companies. Without the new Bills, there would be black children who would not have access to education.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson sketched the points made by SADTU. He recognised that the current copyright regime was more than 40 years old and emphasised the transformative nature of the Copyright Amendment Bill. The Committee would definitely take into account the views expressed by SADTU.

Prof Forere, University of Witwatersrand (Wits)
Prof Malebakeng Forere, Professor of IP, Wits, had written a lot on the CAB but she had not focused on fair use and she would address that aspect. She agreed with the points made by the AV presenters but she would arrive at a different conclusion, i.e. that the Bills could be amended and adopted. Her major areas of concern were fair use, section 12A and other exceptions; mandatory royalties in the film industry, section 8A; compliance with section 19D with the Marrakesh Treaty, Article 4.

One focus was on section 12A which would replace the current principle of fair dealing, although fair dealing had gone to court only once since the inception of the Act and that was in the Moneyweb case. The lack of legal challenges under that regime led one to accept that it could not be a thoroughly bad concept. In light of there being no shortcomings with current fair dealing, few countries use fair use and pushback from industry, and bearing in mind the plight of artists in SA that led to the Copyright Review Commission as well as the advice given by the 4-member panel of experts to Parliament, why not retain fair dealing? She cautioned against the insistence on royalties that sometimes did not pay creators much, if anything, at all and reminded Members that Artists were freelancers and did not fit the typical requirements for many financial services providers. She earnestly requested the introduction of a copying levy in the Bill. She also warned that the Bills were administratively heavy and money would go to maintaining administration and red tape instead of going to the creators. It was contrary to the declaration of the government to reduce red tape. Prof Forere believed that the industry should be permitted to manage its own affairs.

Prof Forere concluded that the Bill was not perfect but workable and could be remedied. Rejecting the Bill would amount to wasteful expenditure and so energies had to be directed at salvaging the Bill.

(See Presentation)

The Acting Chairperson asked whether, if the Bills were amended as suggested, the structural challenges around representation and reward in the value chain would be achieved because he thought the intention was to address transformation in the value chain of the industry itself and to ensure that black people were properly paid.

Prof Forere stated that the main problem had been the collective societies and that the Bill addressed that, especially as the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) would be controlling the societies. The problem currently was that the collecting societies and management organisations did not pay the royalties due to members and often members did not even know what was due to them. If organisations were owned by the members and supervised by CIPC, creators would be paid what was due to them. There was a lot in the Bill that was good for South Africans and that should not be overlooked.

GP Mbatha & Associates/ Goodwill King Advertising & SHOWBIZAFRIKA
Mr Thulani Goodwill Mbatha was unable to connect from his home owing to load shedding and the public venue from which he had connected was too noisy for him to speak. It was agreed that he could make his oral submission at a later date.

Library & Information Association of South Africa (LIASA)
Mr Charlie Molepo, President-Elect, LIASA, stated that the current legislation was outdated and restrictive and hampered the economy. The cultural heritage of South Africa was at serious risk. Mr Molepo referred to fires at libraries, especially the fire at the Jagger Reading Room at UCT in 2021 in which 70 000 copies of irreplaceable material had been lost because of the restrictions that prevented libraries from digitising such material. He believed that South Africa should not copy legislation from other parts of the world.

Mr Molepo pointed out that, especially in respect of universities, most of the material was not local content nor local authors as most of the prescribed material came from overseas and 90% of that money was going offshore. The Amendment Bill was progressive and forward-looking and would empower libraries and archives to carry out their statutory mandate. The Bill aligned with South African law with other progressive copyright regimes and international treaties and introduced the limitation and exceptions that many developing countries had been enjoying for years. It went a long way to redressing omissions, restrictions and imbalances in the current copyright regime.

Mr Molepo called for the Committee to adopt the Bills and return them to the President for his approval.

The Acting Chairperson thanked LIASA for responding to the call for submissions as it had put Members in a much better position of stakeholders’ views and the Committee would definitely take that position into account.

Artists Unite
Kayla, Coordinator for Artists Unite, supported the Bills, especially fair use because artists in Africa were being exploited. She could not agree with those who rejected the Bills to continue the exploitation of artists. Three artists presented their experiences under the current legislation.

Mercy Pagela, a musician, said that she was paid 3% of 90% and so was hugely exploited in the 1980s. The Bill would protect her in the future.

Alec Khaoli, a musician, stated that most artists in SA had paupers’ funerals. He said that record companies had dictated the fee that they would pay for his music to be re-used at the current time. He pleaded that the Bills be passed.

Sidney Magopoli, also known as Mama’s baby, declared that musicians did not have rights. He had signed a contract that he had not written; he had signed a contract drawn up by someone else and given to him to sign. The artists and musicians had done a lot of work to get the current government into power and so the government owed it to them to ensure that they got their money. They were not getting royalties and Youtube was playing all their music.

Artists Unite agreed that they could not continue to sign contracts with international record labels. Kayla said that the artists were still having to adhere to contracts signed during the apartheid era. Transformation should change that. Artists had to go to the Tribunals and get their money. Regulations would ensure that performers would get what was fair and would deal with the injustices of the past.

They thanked the government profusely for the Bills.

(See Presentation)

Mr Brauteseth did not argue that compensation had to be based on the success of the work. He asked if the artists were arguing that all artists should get the same royalty. Was the reward based on the success of the work or did all get the same reward?

Mr Dangor said that the presentation of Artists Unite was one from the heart of the artists and had moved him in a particular direction in respect of the Bills.

Artists Unite agreed with Mr Brauteseth that compensation should be made in relation to sales but the artists needed to reclaim their credits or they had no heritage. Their heritage was kept in the archives of another family, i.e. the international record companies. That was how they would earn a living.

The Acting Chairperson said that the Bill had to be supported because artists had to participate in the value chain. Only the artists understood the complexity of the industry and he expressed a word of gratitude to Artists Unite.

In response, the artists thanked government for the Bill.

Closing Remarks
The Acting Chairperson thanked all presenters that day for giving the Members of the Committee an understanding of the many aspects of the industry.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: