Bill C-11 Committee on March 12th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Now opening it up for discussion, Mr. Angus, for the New Democrats. You have five minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

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.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I have Mr. Benskin for two and a half minutes, and then if there is time, Mr. Cash.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

There is a huge disconnect between the Conservative government and the realities of what an artist does. There seems to be this sense that an artist gets paid once, and he or she should be satisfied. There are levels of usage.

The broadcast companies do not pay twice. They pay for the mechanical right. That is a separate right. Then they pay for performance, the same as if you buy a record, you pay for that record, and when it's played, you pay for usage. They're two separate things and should be seen as two separate things.

They need to be two separate things because unlike buying a record or buying the download—which they want to get out of—every time a piece of music is played, a new dollar is made by the broadcaster. If a new dollar is made, the artist should have a share of that new dollar. Every time a song is played, a new dollar is made through advertising, through whatever means, but a new dollar is made to the broadcaster. Why should the artist not have an opportunity to share in that?

There needs to be an understanding of what the artist's world is.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

There's a minute left to Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I just wanted to underscore something my colleague, Mr. Nantel, said. These are rights that have been adjudicated by the Copyright Board. It's not that they're paying twice for the same right.

With respect, Mr. Del Mastro, they're paying for two separate rights. That's very important and it does underline just how little the government side understands how artists make a living in this country. In fact, what you've done is, in a backdoor way, taken $21 million out of the pockets of artists, instead of just being up front with Canadians and saying that you're going to cut this right and you're going to let broadcasters, who are already making hundreds of millions of dollars, make $21 million more.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

There are 20 seconds left, Monsieur Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Really, I am amazed. Here we are talking about reforming copyright and the only thing we are doing is taking money out the creators' pockets. That's all we are doing. It's pathetic.

If people took the time to learn the facts, they would never come up with garbage like that and they would not be trying to bypass the Copyright Board of Canada, which, in terms of time and context, manages the way in which artists are to be compensated.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

That is the New Democrats' time on this amendment.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, I will then ask for show of hands.

All those in favour of Liberal amendment number 9 please raise your hands.

All those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

We've now moving on to New Democrat amendment number 9.

Will that be moved, Mr. Angus?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, we will move that.

I'll pass it over to Mr. Cash who will speak to this.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

This is where the whole problem started, with the deletion of the exemption to the exemption. This is where this whole issue started.

We've got a situation here where the government is saying that artists are getting paid too much money. That's essentially what you're saying here today. You're saying artists are getting paid too much money and broadcasters need a helping hand.

There are small broadcasters out there who do need a helping hand and we understand that, but we're not talking about that because 80% of broadcasting is pretty well locked down by very large corporations that are making significant profits.

I'm wondering if the government side can say whether the intention here is to give broadcasters a 30-day window or is the intention here to let the broadcasters off the hook for the broadcast mechanical? Which is it? Does someone on that side know and, if so, do they want to say?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

All right.

I'll give some of your time to Mr. Del Mastro, if you'd like to answer?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I think the intent is pretty clear, Mr. Chairman, that broadcasters may download and maintain a copy of a work for 30 days without paying the mechanical.

To the members opposite who do seem somewhat confused, what's at issue here is that the broadcasters cannot purchase the music in the format that they actually use it on. They pay a royalty for music in a format that they cannot use and then are subsequently charged a second charge to be able to use it in a format that they can use. It's like charging people to buy music on an eight-track so that they can later get in on their iPod. That's what the opposition doesn't seem to understand.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

We go back to Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

We have 30 seconds for the New Democrats.

Monsieur Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honestly, it is a good thing that my mind has gone blank. I am speechless. Not recognizing that the bill has the wrong title is an incredible affront. It is called An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Clearly, all we are doing here is drying up the rights of artists and creators. I have nothing else to say.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

We'll have Mr. Lake, for the Conservatives, for five minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It won't take me five minutes, again, but I will weigh in on this.

First of all, we have agreement on a few things.

Mr. Cash, arts and culture are a big part of the economy. We agree on that. You made the allegation that we're talking about creators making too much money. No one on this side has actually said that creators make too much money. What we have said is that we need to have an honest discussion about the numbers, so when numbers are presented one way, when the impression is created by some on one side of the issue that creators are getting less money, that needs to be corrected. We have to put the actual numbers on the table to say that it's not true, and that's what we've done.

Quite clearly, what we need is a system that will be balanced so that creators have the opportunity to make money from their creations. To use Mr. Angus's nice story about old Ms. McGrady, I think he said that if old Ms. McGrady wants to make her memoirs available for free, that should be her decision, right? It should be up to her.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

If you want to read it for more than five days—

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Do you want to ask her the question, Mr. Lake?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's fair enough. We don't say that, actually.

If she wants to make them available, she can do that. She has control of her copyright.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

She doesn't at the library level.