Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Marian Hebb]

—and some copying, which is not.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay. Thank you very much. I will have to give the floor to Mr. McTeague.

Yes, point d'ordre?

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

Yes. I have a point of order specifically concerning the exchange between Mr. Del Mastro and Ms. Atwood, but this should also apply to all of our meetings.

When one witness speaks to us by videoconference, it is hard for that person to answer questions and to explain his or her point of view if that person's interlocutor constantly interrupts, especially when the latter leaves the microphone on and tends to always leave it on

Mr. Chairman, it then becomes impossible for the witness to state his or her point of view as the volume of the witness's microphone is much lower than that of the microphone of the person asking the questions.

This concerns the debate we are having today, but I would like us to take this into account in all cases in future where an individual is invited to testify by videoconference. We have to respect the witnesses and the fact that they are taking the time to speak to us.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Go ahead quickly, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For clarification on parliamentary procedure when it pertains to committees, all the witnesses are provided an opportunity to make their presentations in a manner in which they are not interrupted, and that is their time. However, when we go around the table, that is not their time. That is the time of the committee members, to allow them to ask questions of the witnesses, and when they get the answer to the question that they're seeking, they can move on to the next question because it's their time. You can elect to use your time, Mr. Rodriguez, however you see fit.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead because I would like—

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

We'll eventually have to find a way to proceed when people testify by videoconference. From what Mr. Del Mastro says, those people, whether they're in favour of the bill or not, will never be able to speak to us: we'll just have to prevent them from speaking using microphones.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

In that situation, the Chair will use his discretionary power to ensure that everything works well. Thank you.

Mr. McTeague.

You have seven minutes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That's five, Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

No, you have four because we want to have everybody. So you have four minutes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I will be very quick.

And thank you, witnesses.

To the CSI, you've indicated that in addition to ephemeral recording exception, a number of other provisions in the bill are giving you some concern that they would actually threaten the broadcast mechanical right.

I'm wondering if what you're actually trying to present here is that unless those provisions are withdrawn, the actual broadcast mechanical right would be threatened, even if the proposed amendment to the ephemeral recording exception is abandoned. Can you elaborate?

Does someone want to answer my question?

[Alain Lauzon]

Yes, thank you. We are very concerned about the exceptions for technological reproductions, back-up copies and other exceptions introduced by the bill which put revenues at risk, mainly broadcasters' revenues.

I'll ask Mr. Lavallée to clarify that position.

[Martin Lavallée, Legal Counsel , CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. (CSI)]

Yes, absolutely. The discussions are focused to an enormous degree on ephemeral recording. And yet there are three other provisions in the legislation that concern the technological reproduction right. Those provisions are drafted in a vague and general way. I'm going to read you, for example, excerpts from clause 32 of the bill on the technological process: "It is not an infringement of copyright [where] the reproduction forms an essential part of a technological process..." So once again, no compensation is paid to rights holders.

What is an essential part? We've seen the types of copies that broadcasters will be able to make.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

It isn't well defined.

[Martin Lavallée]

It isn't well defined. It refers here to facilitating a use, which is vague and subjective. In our brief, we suggest ways of [Inaudible—Editor].

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you.

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me with respect to broadcasting in general. Radio stations actually charge a fee or a tariff to media monitoring outlets. I'm of the view that those same radio stations in fact provide and must go to the Copyright Board to uphold these tariffs to have their rights upheld.

It seems to me that if this is the case, one questions the reluctance of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to pay Canadian artists for the copying of their work. Where I come from, it certainly sounds--call it for what it is--like a bit of hypocrisy. Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Basskin?

[David Basskin]

Certainly, Mr. McTeague.

We support the right of broadcasters to be paid for the use of their work. It seems to make sense. We want to be paid for the use of ours.

But it's a rather stark contrast, as you say. Broadcasters filed a tariff with the Copyright Board a few years ago. Their initial proposal to the board was that they were seeking 25% of the revenue of media monitoring companies. The board's decision was subsequently for 10%. As I said earlier, their current proposal is for 14%. They are certainly ambitious numbers. Personally speaking, I'd love to get 14% of what the broadcasters make. That's obviously not happening.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

So they're comfortable with saying to everyone, “If you copy anything from our radio stations, you pay.”

[David Basskin]

Absolutely.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

But as far as your organization and artists and creators who provide 80% of their programming are concerned, they don't want to pay, and that's what this bill would give licence to.

[David Basskin]

That's exactly what it would do.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Well, I'm sorry, it is hypocritical.

Let me ask a final question, then, on the subject of small radio stations that appear to be demonstrating.... Is it fair to say, as CAB does, that if this legislation is not passed, small stations will go bankrupt? In your opinion, why are small stations actually being pressured?

[David Basskin]

Well, I'm struck that there are a lot of other forces facing broadcasters today. There's competition from other media. There's competition from listening to music on the Internet. There are the exigencies of operating in small markets. There's competition coming from larger cities.

Frankly, if the relatively small amounts, the tiny amounts, of money that broadcasters in that category pay...as I said, under even $1 million worth of revenue, a broadcaster would pay us $4,100. I sincerely doubt that a $4,100 charge will take down a company.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Basskin.

I now give the floor to Mr. Cardin, for four minutes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The broadcasters talked to us about the smallest stations, ephemeral copies and so on. They are ephemeral but they are becoming increasingly eternal. I think that the issue is whether copies of all kinds—there are apparently a dozen types—have a value. That's central to the debate.

For example, it happens that larger stations sell smaller stations entire programs that they've produced. They can be four-hour programs that, with the current technology, require only 30 minutes of musical production and reproduction. That is happening and it can earn revenues. How much is that sold for?

It's probably big stations that sell productions to small stations. How does that in fact take place?