Thank you.
This has been fascinating because we were told by our panel of experts here that temporary reproductions are meant to be temporary only, and it would be a matter for the courts if broadcasters were attempting to use this to not pay the mechanical rights they are obligated to pay under the law. Yet we were told at committee, day after day, that they were intending to use this loophole and they felt the loophole should be done away with altogether so they wouldn't have to pay.
My colleagues across the way feel the government should intervene in the adjudication of the Copyright Board. The Copyright Board sets the rate. The Conservatives don't like the rate. They think it's not nice.
I find it fascinating that these guys are going after little libraries and saying that if they're going to make a PDF of old Mrs. McGrady's memoirs they'd better have them for only five days because they could get out there. But if some of the largest broadcast organizations in Canada decide they want to erase their reproductions after 29 days, they're already paying enough. The message we heard was that it had to be balanced and that we're giving them an opportunity. Well, there is opportunity here. If you have it for 29 days, then pay the royalty. This is what is adjudicated by the Copyright Board, and we're seeing from this government that they believe they have the right to erase royalty payments that are established under a very strict process. They're taking the side of the broadcasters.
We support radio. Radio has done great work in this country, but when we look at the royalty rates that radio has made since 1996 when they had a 1% profit, it's over 20% now.
The Copyright Board felt the mechanical recording was undervalued for many years and that because of the changes and the fact that they don't need nearly as much staff, that this was a fair payment. This was decided by the Copyright Board.
The Conservatives are stepping in. They're deciding they're going to allow this loophole. If this is a mechanical royalty that must be paid, I'll be interested to see, from the testimony we have and from your advice, whether or not this will end up in court if people are attempting to use this to circumvent the act and its intention.