Evidence of meeting #10 for Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you very much.
Obviously, having been a chamber member for a long time, I'm just interested if the chamber has actually put any numbers to what they think—since we like throwing numbers out—is actually being lost on an annual basis due to lack of protection in this country, due to piracy of copyrighted materials.
Has the chamber quantified that in any way?
11:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I'll turn to Lee on this again, but it's very difficult to put that sort of a figure on lost revenues. You simply don't know exactly what has taken place and what people's behaviour would have been otherwise. All we know is that it's substantial, and to a degree it's correctable, but let me turn to Lee on that.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Maybe I can just refine the question a little bit. If you can't quantify the loss, is anybody coming to you and saying they would invest more in Canada or invest more into their business if they felt better protected?
11:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Absolutely. What we certainly hear from our members is that copyright protection is critical for them in looking at investments they make in Canada. Do we have a regime that's attractive here or not?
If I can talk personally just for a minute, my family was a manufacturing company. I'm not talking about copyright but about IP here. We employed 800 people in the small town of Fergus. My grandfather at one point reportedly had more patents registered after his name than anybody else in Canada. That was an incentive to innovation and to job creation and to prosperity for Canadians. It is no different as you move away from patent protection to copyright protection. Having that sort of a framework in place rewards creativity, innovation, and risk. People, whether they're artists themselves or whether they're business people, are going to go where risk will be rewarded.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
Okay. Thank you very much.
We'll move to the second round of questioning, and it's a five-minute round, starting with Mr. Rodriguez.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you very much.
I think we all agree on the importance of modernizing this copyright bill, so you must have been very disappointed when you realized that it took five years for the government to start discussing this after proroguing two, three times. I hear Mr. Del Mastro comment, but if there had been no prorogations, maybe we could have dealt with this before. I don't think the opposition is responsible for this.
We agree that the act has to be modernized and that we have to have a sound copyright system consistent with our international undertakings. We also agree that consumers must have better access to content.
Where we don't agree with you is on this idea that content should be free. From what we've heard from you from the start of the discussion, rights existed and generated income. They will no longer exist, and that's fine; that's not a problem with regard to private copying. In your view, does private copying have a monetary value? Is it worth something?
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Worth something to the individual? But that's one of the reasons, when we're talking about technological protection measures, digital locks, that we think it's important that there be protection there that ensures there's a range of options and business plans that people have that they can offer to consumers, and consumers can make a decision then as to what they would like to have.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Artists and creators in the music industry, for example, are also business people. In a way, every artist manages an SME, a small business. They take risks, they have to work and invest, they have to record disks. That costs a lot of money. It's not certain to work. We're telling those artists that now, when someone copies their songs, that's no longer worth anything. Isn't that a problem for you?
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I'm certainly not saying that it's no longer worth anything. Far from it, and the reason why we support copyright legislation is that we believe that intellectual property does have worth. The question is, how do you construct a regime to protect intellectual property that's modern, sufficiently flexible, and responsive to all of the needs that are there?
The most important thing, in my view, that we can do for artists is to ensure that there are protections that don't exist today in terms of protecting their intellectual property. There are other tools as well, in addition to copyright, that the government has at its disposal to provide assistance to artists, and copyright should be looked at as one of those elements that can advance the position of artists, in addition to the others.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You must agree on not extending the levy to new technology or having a program in place, such as the one being suggested. There is a net loss of income for creators in the music sector.
I want to go back to the issue of ephemeral rights. You entirely agree on the idea of maintaining this aspect as proposed by the government. Is my understanding correct?
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Intellectual Property Committee, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Yes, we do.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You also know and are aware that there is a loss that is estimated—this isn't a randomly selected figure, but an established and proven figure—at approximately $21 million. In your mind, it isn't a problem that this $21 million is lost by creators, by people in the cultural sector?
11:50 a.m.
Chair, Intellectual Property Committee, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I'm not quite sure where that $21 million number comes from. Perhaps you could explain it a bit more.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
These are the figures advanced by the music industry. It's the very amount of which you say a part is paid to foreign artists.
11:50 a.m.
Representative, Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright
If I may, I would just say that the only loss that will result--if we're talking about the radio station ephemeral--would be if no radio station keeps any copies longer than 30 days. The existing provision only covers copies for 30 days. On the 31st day, they can't rely on the exception; they need to do something else.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I understand, but there are broadcast loops. The song can very well be deleted after 30 days and be recorded again, and it continues on that way. In net terms, there will be an income loss of $21 million if the bill remains as it stands.
11:50 a.m.
Representative, Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright
But I also don't think we should--
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I agree with you on certain points. Some points are valid, but what concerns me is that there is a loss of income for our creators, which doesn't seem to trouble you.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
Mr. Rodriguez, we're going to have to move on.
Mr. Cardin, you have five minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning and welcome, gentlemen.
I'm going to go back to Ms. Lavallée's remarks, which also served as a basis for questions by Mr. Rodriguez following a few points mentioned by you, gentlemen, the witnesses. I believe it was you, Mr. Beatty, who said that "the better is the enemy of the good," and Mr. Del Mastro supported that statement. It's also said that "perfection is not of this world," but we have to try to improve every day, as though we could achieve it.
As Mr. Wilson said, this bill creates the same rules for everybody, but we're talking about different classes of creators, whom you represent as well. Some creators are really smaller. Earlier Ms. Lavallée advanced a figure saying that nearly $74 million in copyright royalties could be lost as a result of this bill.
We're talking about balance, particularly in a context of constant and increasingly rapid technological change. Some creators can easily defend their copyright and ownership rights. However, the smaller creators who don't necessarily have that kind of control must also be given the same ability.
The result, based on the analyses and figures that have been advanced by a number of specialists, is nearly $74 million in losses. Mr. Webster told us earlier that the purpose of copyright was to reward authors and creators. Personally, I don't consider it a reward, but rather a form of salary. Someone has created something and his creation evolves through time and has a monetary value solely as a result of those who use it or consume it.
At that point, we can't say there is a reward. If we consider that this is a reward, what are they doing wrong for them to be deprived of $74 million, as provided for in this bill?
11:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I'll start and then turn it over to colleagues after that.
Let me come back to what you were saying about whether we're allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I fully agree with you. Whatever bill comes out of this Parliament, or whatever legislation there is, will not be perfect. It'll represent Parliament's best attempt to put a modern regime in place, and it'll start to feel the creaks and the strains as technologies change very rapidly.
But the only thing that I'm sure of, Mr. Cardin, is that it will be infinitely better than what we have today. And the plea I would make to Parliament is, do not lock us into the 20th century when we've moved into the 21st century. We need to modernize what we do.
Again I come back to the question, what can we do for our artists? One of the key things we have to do is to ensure protection is in place in terms of copyright to protect their creations. That's essential. Is that all we can do for them? No, it's not.
I am a former Minister of Communications responsible for culture. in addition government has many tools to address issues artists have, which it should use. Société Radio-Canada, of which I was president, is the largest cultural institution in Canada and a great source of support for artists as well.
There are many tools, but one of the tools that artists definitely need is to have modern copyright legislation. Without that, we'd lock ourselves in the past, and everybody loses. If we make the change, does everybody win as much as they would like to win? Inevitably there will be debate on that. The only thing I know is that if we don't act, everybody loses. That's why we must act.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
The people you represent also include some major specialists. As I told you earlier, some people are able to protect themselves and to protect their creativity, their creations and their inventions. They should also make a contribution to assisting the smaller ones. If we consider the major disseminators of cultural products, if there was no culture, what would they do? So it's also up to them to assist in this protection.
11:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
And they do. You are preaching to the converted, certainly, when you're talking to me about where we would be without culture. I've devoted much of my life to defending Canadian culture and Canadian sovereignty, and it's critical for me.
Our members are taking important steps. Our members create the opportunity for artists to have their works distributed and sold, and pay them for doing that. Our members create the technological protections that are in place to help protect the intellectual property artists have created, and we feel very strongly. It's a partnership. Our businesses could not function without the creators. It's essential.