Evidence of meeting #16 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 radio.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Programming and Operations, Haliburton Broadcasting Group Inc.
Mr. Garneau, thank you for your question.
We're only talking about the mechanical rights here. We're talking about the $21 million reproduction right here. That's all we're talking about. The fact is that we're already paying the artists and the creators. We are already paying with these other tariffs we have.
It's really important that through SOCAN, and through Re:Sound, the creators, the producers, and the songwriters are being paid already.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Understand that are two rights involved here, and that is in the law.
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Programming and Operations, Haliburton Broadcasting Group Inc.
I understand that, and this is the point of our objection. It is about the mechanical rights reproduction.
I want to say to the music industry—I heard Mr. Angus say this two or three days ago, when he was talking to the music industry, and this has been said many times—that the music industry model is broken. They know that, we all know that, and we're all in here trying to help. I think that's what this whole thing is about.
I want to say to our friends in the music industry and to this committee, but specifically to the music industry, “Guys, you're aiming your guns at the wrong people. You're shooting your own people here, because we're in this business together.”
We have always been in this together with them. As Paul said, in the days of vinyl records and CDs, it was literally that. They would walk in. We had a great relationship. They gave us the music for free. They gave it because they wanted us to play the new record by Marc Garneau. They brought it in, we put it on our turntable, and we played it. It didn't cost anything. They were happy for that and everything was going forward.
Then one day--
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I understand how the technology has changed.
I would like to ask Mr. Banville a question.
You mentioned that there are costs for radio stations. You of course have to have modern technologies to operate a radio station. At the same time, wouldn't you be prepared to admit that some costs are disappearing as a result of the emergence of that technology? I'm talking about labour costs, space costs for music libraries and so on. Isn't it true that, with modern technology, a lot of costs will disappear, which will ultimately make it possible, as I mentioned earlier, to achieve profits of 18% on average per radio station?
12:25 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
Thank you for asking that question, Mr. Garneau.
With regard to the last point raised, I simply want to tell you that, for the future of artists, the strength and vitality of radio are good news, in my view. Imagine if we were in a crisis at the same time as them. One need only think of industries such as the book industry or the print media. So we're very lucky. I believe that's quite positive.
I'd also like to tell you that the costs that have declined have been replaced by other costs. There used to be no webmasters or social media specialists at stations. The music programmer is still—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I remind you that you're posting profits of 18% on average for the 644 stations.
12:25 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
Mr. Garneau, I can tell you that I still work for a number of stations that aren't making those kinds of profits.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Unfortunately, I have to speak to the entire industry. We can always find exceptions, of course. Some make more profit and others less, but we're talking about the industry in general.
12:25 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
All right, but you're talking about saving on costs. But I see that we haven't saved anything and that, in addition, we're required to hire people in the new technology field. Our survival depends on that. You're talking about music. Of course, that's what attracts people, but if there was just music, they would resort to satellite broadcasts, iTunes and all the rest. But they listen to us because we're responsible for talent broadcast over the air by people who have a love for music and a talent to convince listeners to love it as well. That has a very big impact on the music industry. We can't sell music simply by broadcasting it.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
Those talents are increasingly expensive, if I may take the liberty of pointing that out.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Your activities mainly cover Quebec. Do you think that Quebec artists, musicians and composers are pleased with your position on ephemeral recordings? Do you think they find it fair?
12:25 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
Look, Mr. Garneau, I've had disputes with the record industry throughout my career. I've always been told that, out of 800 new recordings, for example, you don't broadcast everything. We've had disputes; we can't broadcast everything; we can't do everything. However, I think artists are ultimately grateful to the radio industry because it does an extraordinary promotional job.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Yes, but I get complaints from a lot of artists and that generally isn't the message they send me. In fact, they feel abandoned in this situation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you.
Good afternoon, MM. Davies, Banville and Larche. I feel a bit uncomfortable about the fact that you're seated here seeking a reduction or cancellation of royalties on what's called ephemeral recordings. I believe the principle you're advocating is that you represent radio stations or own radio stations that belong to the major groups of Corus and Astral and that you're consequently not making a lot of money and profits and that this is an unbearable financial burden. Is that correct, Mr. Banville?
12:30 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
I want to tell you that this isn't just about the small radio stations. A principle is a principle. Why pay two or three times for the same thing? This is part of our mechanism. We could also ask the record industry to provide us with the music in the format in which we broadcast it. That would be a bit complicated, and I believe it would cost those people much more than $21 million because a number of technologies are involved. What can I say? This is related to the kind of technology we're offered, but we don't all have the same technology. As we're already paying our royalties; we could ask those people why they send us their music in a format that's impossible to broadcast. We could demand that they send it to us in a broadcast-ready format. This is a question of principle.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
From what I've understood, you would nevertheless be required to transfer it onto your hard disk and—
12:30 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
If we could broadcast it directly from Outlook, we would do it, Mrs. Lavallée.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
The basic principle we have to come back to and that we must not stray from for technical considerations is that the musical work belongs to its creator or creators. When I go to HMV to buy a CD, I'm not buying the music of the Colocs because that music doesn't belong to me. I'm buying the pleasure of listening to it on that CD. Then, when I get home, if I make a copy of it on my MP3 player, I should only have to pay royalties on the copy. Every time we make a copy or change formats, it seems to me that it's normal for us to pay royalties to the person who owns the musical work in question.
It's that principle that was established in 1997 when the decision was made to charge royalties for ephemeral recordings. The principle was established, and it has worked very well in the past 14 years. Revenues were given to artists and now you want to take them away.
When the representatives of the television community appeared—I don't know whether it was here or before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage—they said they had essentially come to ask us for a copyright holiday. That makes no sense. They no longer wanted to pay royalties either for ephemeral recordings or for copyright, saying that they were a burden. It's not a burden, but an inventory. You never buy a musical work.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
The least you could do when you copy a work for the first time would be to pay royalties to those who created it.
12:30 p.m.
Radio Consultant, As an Individual
Mrs. Lavallée, we pay our copyright royalties. I don't want to draw a bad comparison, but if someone buys a Riopelle, he's not required to pay for it two or three times because he shows it to friends.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
He's not required to pay for it two or three times, but normally, if someone buys a Riopelle, he's buying the pleasure of having it at his home and looking at it. In fact, the work still belongs to Riopelle. The best proof of that is that we don't have a right to destroy an artistic work. In all European countries, they pay following rights. If a Riopelle is sold and resold through an art gallery, that gallery pays 5% of the revenue to the artist or the artist's heirs.
