Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Very well.

Do you want to respond quickly?

[Miriam Shiell]

As an international art dealer, I have to pay ARR every time I buy at auction in Europe, so we are being penalized in the marketplace here.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Are you saying that you have proof that it hurts the market?

[Miriam Shiell]

It hurts the market, yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do you have proof of that?

[Miriam Shiell]

Yes, because you are charging every time title is passed. The difference, perhaps, between the art market and the other people appearing here today is that we're not talking about intellectual property. We're talking about an object. The artist made an object.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, but you need it. You need their stuff. They have to produce it. They have to paint it for you to sell it and for you to make money, right?

[Miriam Shiell]

You're also making assumptions that the secondary market, which is absolutely minute in this country--maybe 10%, 15%, or 20% of the total art market, which, at the very best, may be $1 billion a year--

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

So the visual artists are wrong. That's for themselves. They're wrong about the whole situation.

[Miriam Shiell]

We're saying that it is the wrong approach for solving the issue of artists' income in this country. This is a band-aid solution.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It's a permanent solution, not a band-aid solution.

[Miriam Shiell]

It's a permanent solution, believe me, but it's not the answer, and the cost of administration for small business--

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Nobody is saying it's the answer to everything. I personally think it's part of the solution, but there are other things we should add.

[Miriam Shiell]

It will do harm to the marketplace, and therefore you will harm your artists. There is proof in Britain that dealers are changing their dealing habits; they are not supporting emerging artists because of the increased liability cost. I don't mean liability in the legal sense, but in the sense of the increased cost of administering ARR. So they're choosing to go elsewhere.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do you want to comment?

Do you want to respond to that?

[April Britski]

Yes. We've actually had different figures coming from Britain. I understand that in 2007, an independent survey was taken of artists and art market professionals on the subject of the resale right, and they said that over 60% of art market professionals say that the resale right takes them less than five minutes and costs less than £10 per quarter in administration. And 87% of them said that the resale right has not damaged their business.

I would also say that it can be argued that the resale right will, for the most part, affect auction houses rather than commercial galleries, because 97% of the Canadian resale market is within our auction houses rather than in smaller galleries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Madame Lavallée, pour sept minutes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I find this discussion fascinating because it highlights two aspects of the bill. First, we are seeing just how imbalanced the bill is. On one hand, you have the Art Dealers Association of Canada, which represents businesses and is by no means struggling, and on the other, you have the artists, who are clamouring for the resale right, a right that already exists in 59 other countries.

Second, the Conservatives and the opposition parties are divided on a fundamental principle, as are the artists and the art dealers, if I may say so. That principle is this: the creative work belongs to the creator. And that notion does not come from me, but from the great philosopher John Locke. England's Queen Anne enacted the first ever copyright law based on that very philosophy. I find that extremely fascinating. And that principle is clearly front and centre today.

We could, as Ms. Shiell just said, reduce the work to a material object and say if it is sold, it is sold. We could also ask, as Mr. Del Mastro did earlier, how many times are we going to pay for a CD. When you buy a CD, you buy the right to use that CD to listen to the content on it. Assuming that the creative work belongs to the creator, as soon as that artistic content is copied onto another device, the artist should, at the very least, be compensated.

My understanding is that you want visual artists to have the resale right. Mr. Rodriguez said it was a matter of common sense, pure and simple. Of course it is, and why you ask? Because the work belongs to its creator. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the work may simply be a material object in the eyes of many—a material object about which there is much speculation—the fact remains that what art lovers are buying is the pleasure to enjoy their purchase, the pleasure to watch it. Nevertheless, the work itself remains the property of the creator, and in light of that, we should indeed be giving artists the resale right, as is the case in other countries around the world. Most importantly, we should not be depriving artists in Quebec and Canada of what they are due when their works are sold abroad.

I can certainly ask you questions, but I do not see how we can disregard such an important right for visual artists.

My question is for the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec. In one of your documents, you say, and I quote: “that the private copying regime be extended to all apparatuses used to navigate on the Internet”. You say it should also apply to visual artists. Could you please elaborate on your proposal.

[Christian Bédard]

As you know, the content being downloaded nowadays is more than just music; it is movies and visual artwork. Just yesterday, we heard that Google now has a tool allowing users to visit certain large museums online, in the same way that Google Earth enables users to explore the world. So people will be able to visit a museum, enjoy the museum experience and view works of art up close—remotely. As a result of this tool, works of art will be copied, stored, downloaded and used in a variety of ways. Visual artists should absolutely be able to benefit from the income and economic impact of this tool. The digital economy is based on content, the creators of which must be compensated in one way or another. I think it is important to understand that the private copying regime should apply to every apparatus, and every artistic discipline should benefit accordingly.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Which collective copyright management organization currently pays you royalties and for which type of use?

[Christian Bédard]

Collective copyright management organizations such as Copibec and Access pay royalties when the artistic content is used in academic settings, including reproduction and classroom presentation of the work. The royalties are minimal. In Quebec, they represent around $300,000 to $350,000 a year. That may not seem like much, but it makes a big difference to a struggling artist when they receive a $400 cheque right before Christmas. What's more, Quebec offers a tax credit on copyright income, which, by the way, the federal government should also do. So there are benefits.

The rest of the income comes from visitor fees at museums, artist-run centres and exhibit galleries. This represents a much larger amount—although still not enough—for the right to exhibit a work of art in a public place, other than for the purpose of selling or leasing it. There are also reproduction rights, in order to reproduce a work of art for marketing purposes, whether commercial or not, for catalogues or for the Internet, among other things. So royalties should be paid for these activities, and some are.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You mentioned a tax credit. The Quebec government does indeed provide a tax credit on royalties received by artists in every discipline.

Is there a limit?

[Christian Bédard]

Yes, the tax credit can be as high as $15,000, for a maximum income of $30,000. Above that threshold, the tax credit decreases and disappears completely when the income reaches $60,000 or higher.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You said there is no such federal tax measure.

[Christian Bédard]

Unfortunately not, but there should be.