To extend that preposterous analogy, it's like saying that you buy a car, and therefore you should be able to park the car anywhere you want and not have to pay, because you've already paid once for the car. Hey, heck, there should be enough space to park that car anywhere you want.
The parking of the car is a different use, and I think the government is intentionally conflating these uses and obscuring the issue. The issue is the protection of a right that's already been adjudicated by the Copyright Board.
It's also an issue of fairness. It's an issue of fairness for artists.
First of all, we have an arts and culture sector that is a very significant player in the economy of Canada, and you have thousands upon thousands of artists that barely make it to the poverty line. And here you guys are, sitting there comfortably, saying that we need to give broadcasters a break.
It is an issue of fairness. It is surprising to me that no one on that side has given a proper accounting of why this is written the way it is, and our friends over here are essentially saying that it can be decided by the courts.
For musicians, that's just not going to cut it, because of course, there's a huge power imbalance here. Musicians and most artists will not have access to the kinds of resources they would need to properly fight this in court. Broadcasters have all the power in this situation.
Isn't it our job in Parliament to protect the rights of those who are at the bottom end of the scale here? Isn't that the job we're sent here to do?
My goodness, broadcasters have all the power in the world. They have, probably, direct lines to all of your offices.
That's not our job. Our job is to protect the people who need the protection, and that's not happening here, folks. That is absolutely not happening. That's why we support—this is sounding convoluted now—the re-insertion of the exemption to the exemption.