Evidence of meeting #10 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Mr. Angus is moving NDP-8. The floor is now the New Democrats for five minutes.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned a little earlier, here on our side we've been trying very hard to balance the needs of consumers with the foundational intention that artists need to get paid for their work.
We have a gaping hole in this section. In that hole is plunging $21 million of artists' royalties. The government side has heard countless testimony from artists and stakeholders in the arts that this is an attack on the small payments many artists receive. We have never really heard a good explanation from the government as to why this loophole is here. We can only assume in good faith that there's a 30-day exemption here for broadcasters, and it is only to be 30 days. This amendment seeks to ensure that broadcasters have a 30-day exemption, and that's it. They can't make multiple copies, as they came to the committee and testified they would do.
We talked about this quite a lot in these committee hearings. The government tried to label artists' royalties as taxes, which is pretty ludicrous. It's also uninformed. There was the sense that the government thought that radio stations paid for the songs, when they don't. They pay royalties on rights, and that's the way the system works.
This amendment will try to close this hole so that artists will get paid. There is a compromise here, and artists and arts stakeholders have made it. They say that a 30-day exemption will cost them millions of dollars, but they are willing to accept it if the government's intention is to have a 30-day window, but no more than 30 days. Unless the government intends to allow broadcasters to drive their buses through this loophole, they should be able to agree on this.
We heard testimony from radio stations that were actually complaining about this loophole because it's too tough. Radio stations have said they will have to hire a full-time employee to make copies, when their royalty is only about $700 or $800 a year anyway. It seems a little ludicrous.
The language in this amendment clarifies the 30 days. It helps the government with their intention all along, which is to allow broadcasters a 30-day exemption. Our side doesn't actually like that in the first instance, but we're willing to go with that as long as it's a 30-day exemption and no more.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Cash.
There is still some remaining time for the New Democrats to speak. You have about a minute and a half.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Basically, this all comes down to a summary of the despicable comments we have heard from the people who are just looking to profit from this exemption. It will mean a loss of $21 million in royalties to artists. To that $21 million, we can of course add the $30 million dollars that, one day, we will try to get back, let's hope, by overhauling the private copying regime.
We have opposed this Conservative bill from the outset. We are always mindful of the interests of artists in Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada. The Conservatives on the other side of the room speak about balance. I don't think they know what the word “balance” means. We feel that they would have some understanding of what balance is if they had at least found a way to make up for those losses by other means. But that is not the case.
In the Conservatives' bill, there is nothing to make up for that loss. Why? In this committee, the question of where the money taken from the artists' war chest was going to come from has often been asked. The term “war chest” is a very bad choice of words, because we are talking about their income. We have pointed out on a number of occasions that the royalties artists get here and there are their salary. To subtract $21 million dollars that comes from an industry that, for the moment at least, is cashing in on the music handsomely…
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Nantel.
That was five minutes.
Before I move on, I need to clarify that there is a line conflict with LIB-9 in this amendment. So if amendment NDP-8 is adopted, LIB-9 cannot proceed.
Is there any further discussion in relation to this amendment?
Mr. Regan, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I have a question for the officials about this and about the working of the provision as it's drafted. We heard from a number of people representing radio stations that what they felt they would be forced to do, if the bill goes forward as is, would be to basically erase their whole entire library of music and re-record it every 29 days or less. Are they right about that? If not, why not?
Director, Policy and Legislation, Copyright and International Trade Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
The exception in the act now that provides the 30-day limit says that for broadcasting purposes, radio stations can make temporary copies, and they can keep them for 30 days or less. They have to destroy them after 30 days, unless they're willing to pay the licence fee for them. As long as those copies are temporary copies for broadcasting purposes, they can keep those copies for 30 days.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
If they destroy one and make a new copy before that 30 days is up, thereby avoiding that payment—I think we heard them say that this is what they're planning to do—will they succeed?
Director, Policy and Legislation, Copyright and International Trade Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
That ultimately would be a question for a court, I'm sure, if it ever got to that point. What the exception says is that they can make temporary copies and keep those copies for 30 days for broadcasting purposes.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'd like to know what the government's intent is here. It seems to me that this 30-day provision seems to do nothing for anybody. Maybe Mr. Lake can help me out.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
It's up to Mr. Lake, if he so chooses to answer. The time is yours, Mr. Regan.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Yes, we've had the conversation through committee several times.
First of all, I don't agree with this perception the opposition parties want to portray that somehow there has been a reduction in the amounts paid by broadcasters. Clearly, and it hasn't been contested by the opposition parties, they're paying a lot more money. Even if you were to take the $21 million out, they're paying a lot more money than they were paying 10 years ago. It's very clear. I see Mr. Nantel shaking his head, but you just have to look at the numbers. It's very clear that this is the case.
So I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that the broadcasters are paying less. In fact, the amount they pay for the performance rights alone is—I can't remember the numbers exactly; I don't have them in front of me—60-some per cent higher than it was 10 years ago. What we heard is that their revenues haven't gone up that much. Certainly, the inflation rate over those years hasn't been up as much either.
The idea the NDP raised that broadcasters don't pay for the music is quite frankly a ridiculous argument. It's not the broadcasters who decide whether they pay for the music; it's the labels themselves. For their own business purposes, they decide to give free copies. The broadcasters still have to pay to play. Maybe you could clarify that. Do broadcasters actually pay to...?
Maybe you want to use some of Mr. Regan's time to answer that question.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I don't think I got an answer to my question about what the government's intent was with this 30-day rule and whether it was to do with what the stations have been talking about or something different.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Okay. Mr. Regan, we're still on your time, so we can hand it off to....
Mr. Del Mastro.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I just point out to Mr. Regan that this actual portion of the act remains unchanged from previous editions of the act, so I think the intent is clear that, in this case, we're moving forward with the status quo. That said, I think Mr. Lake was pretty clear in his response that the amount in royalties paid to the copyright holders has gone up significantly.
We did raise significant concerns, by the way, that in fact, in many cases, broadcasters are paying twice for the same right. That's something we're actually concerned with. However, we are allowing this to remain unchanged—
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
That's debate, Mr. Cash. I want to thank you for bringing that up, but it's not a point of order.
Mr. Del Mastro, please continue.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I think I've answered the question. This part of the act is unchanged and the bottom line is that the intent of putting it in there was so that temporary copies could be stored under the right that broadcasters are already paying for through the Copyright Board. It's well in excess of $60 million. I believe they're paying $64 million in royalties for the rights to play music. It's a partnership that I think benefits broadcasters, labels, and artists, and it's an important relationship. As I said earlier, it's like a marriage. They need each other, and the broadcasters are paying significantly for that right.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Order, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Regan, I'll give you the opportunity for one more question, if you so like. The Conservatives might like to give you some of their time, if there is any, because they have five minutes available to discuss this amendment.
If not, I'd like to then call the question on amendment NDP-8.
(Amendment negatived)
Now on to Liberal amendment 9.
Mr. Regan, will you be moving this amendment?
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The intent of this amendment is to help to ensure that artists are paid for their work.
