Evidence of meeting #18 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.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
That's fine.
You briefly talked about one important point. You said that radio stations did not have to pay royalties for the first $1.25 million of their revenue. Can you clarify your thinking on that? This is a topic that we haven't really addressed, but that I consider important.
Director, Artisti
Indeed, an exemption is included in the act. Broadcasters do not have to pay royalties on the first $1.25 million of their advertising revenues. They only have to pay a lump sum amount of $100 in all.
The president of Ré:Sonne would probably be in a better position than I am to tell you about that, but if we consider all the rights holders who would normally be entitled to fair compensation, that is to say the performers and producers of sound recordings, the annual amount of money that would not wind up in creators' pockets would be $6 million to $7 million, if I'm not mistaken.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Legault, you talked about digital locks as being a theoretical solution. The bill is based in large part on the existence of those digital locks. You say this is a theoretical solution, whereas the government says they're essential. Could you explain to us whether there are any other ways or devices besides locks?
President, Union des artistes (UDA)
It's a theoretical solution because developing software to install a digital lock costs money. These aren't big producers. The performer in this case isn't necessarily always the producer. The performer can't afford to do it, unlike the producer who can.
Furthermore, you know that the major sound recording producers have abandoned the digital lock model. I'd simply like to emphasize that for every digital lock there is a key. From the moment there is a key, creators can allow copies to be made, which will be distributed over the Internet.
So the solution, in the field of copyright in general and even in the book sector, is to provide access to works. That's the solution that has been selected. On the other hand, the idea is to provide for a right to compensation, which grants access to works and enables creators to be compensated.
The digital lock route is therefore a dead end street for us and one that the major producers have even abandoned. Consider the example of iTunes and Sony, which have decided to remove digital locks from their CDs and downloads to permit wider distribution in response to consumer dissatisfaction.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Ultimately, we don't want to restrict access; we want there to be more access, so that people can use more cultural products, but we also want artists, creators and rights holders to be compensated for their work. That's the goal and that's what has to be demystified. The idea isn't to block access; we have to make it available, but while being fair.
My question is for the three of you. If I'm not mistaken, in your view, Bill C-32, as presented, not only does not improve the situation, but worsens it and should not be adopted. Is that the position of each of you?
Assistant Dean, Faculty of Law, Laval University of Quebec, As an Individual
We erase everything and start over. With certain basic principles, which would include compensation and access, it's entirely possible. There are copyright acts that are much clearer and that successfully achieve these objectives.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You said that copyright is based on the right to property. In your view, what becomes of the right to property in Bill C-32?
Assistant Dean, Faculty of Law, Laval University of Quebec, As an Individual
It is extremely weakened.
The right to property is always exchanged for compensation. A model that we can think of and that respects that is the blanket licence. Some countries are increasingly moving toward that model, under which access is granted and, in exchange, compensation is paid to the collective societies.
So that's entirely conceivable. As I said earlier, I haven't seen any study showing that citizens, consumers, have access to fewer works. I would say that, on the contrary, what we're seeing is that authors are receiving less revenue.
In my view, the Copyright Act is not an act that will suit everybody. It's an act based first of all on the principle of the author's ownership.
Assistant Dean, Faculty of Law, Laval University of Quebec, As an Individual
That's true in this case and in other fields of law.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I have a few seconds left.
In your view, will Bill C-32 enable us to meet our international obligations?
Assistant Dean, Faculty of Law, Laval University of Quebec, As an Individual
I don't believe so.
This is one of the problems, and it has to be said because there will be challenges. If Bill C-32 is passed as it stands, there will be challenges for 10 years before the international and Canadian economic tribunals.
I don't see how Parliament has any interest in telling people to go and fight in the courts and then we'll see what happens.
Virtually all stakeholders who have come and talked about the three-step test have said—in any case, I heard a few say it before you—that this wouldn't pass the international test.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much.
I'll now give the floor to Ms. Lavallée.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much.
First of all, good afternoon, everyone.
Good afternoon, Mr. Azzaria. I wanted to answer one of the questions that you asked at the end of your presentation. Then I'll put some questions to my friends from the UDA.
You're wondering why the government hasn't included the following right in its Bill C-32. That's because, as you noted, all revenue is taken away from artists under Bill C-32.
For the government, this is a loser-loser-loser situation. There is no respect for artists. Earlier we saw how Mr. Del Mastro addressed Ms. Atwood.
Furthermore, with this bill, the government impoverishes artists and culture; it establishes a main barrier to prevent the Copyright Act from being modernized; it prevents itself from combatting illegal downloading and also fails to comply with international treaties.
This kind of loser-loser-loser situation is incomprehensible. Bill C-32 strips artists of all their revenue streams and gives them no others.
Mr. Legault and Ms. Morin, welcome. I've had a question for you for some time.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore, has often said that Bill C-32 addresses four of the six concerns of the UDA and Artisti. Now that you're here together, you'll be able to answer me.
Is that true? And what are those concerns?
President, Union des artistes (UDA)
I heard that question asked in the House and I heard that statement when I met Mr. Moore on Parliament Hill, when we got on board the "show business bus".
President, Union des artistes (UDA)
Mr. Moore referred to six requests submitted during the seminar at which we were consulted. That was in August 2009. At the time, we delivered a brief, evidence, to Mr. Moore. That evidence included nine requests. I'm going to read the list. However, I can tell you that only one request was accepted. As for the others, one was half-accepted and the other seven were rejected.
The requests were as follows: private copying; a system extended to include the audiovisual sector; exclusive rights granted by WIPO with transitional measures: exclusive rights would be granted, but not transitional measures; performances included in cinematographic works—as I said earlier, this is not the case in Bill C-32; a moral right—this appears in Bill C-32, but it states that an artist may waive it, which means that something is being given with one hand and taken away with the other; the impossibility of assigning uses that are not already provided by the act—Bill C-32 makes no reference to this; with regard to revenues over $1.25 million, we asked that both writer composers and performers have the right to the same thing—and that does not appear in Bill C-32; and lastly, with regard to the responsibilities of Internet service providers, we ask that there at least be a "notice and withdrawal" system. However, everything in Bill C-32 is a "notice and notice" system, that is to say that an artist is given the opportunity to say that a person is downloading music illegally and to request that a notice be sent to that person.
Bloc