Canadian Heritage Committee on April 27th, 2010

[Stephen Waddell]

Our concern with respect to foreign ownership is that if you cede ownership of Canadian telecommunications, communications generally, broadcasting, we will lose the opportunity to tell our own stories. We're going to be part of the American monoculture, which already sweeps over us through broadcasting and digital media production.

We have to retain ownership, please, we argue to the government. We must retain Canadian ownership of telecommunications. There's some talk about how it's okay to sell off satellites. Well, it's not okay to sell off satellites; satellites are a component of the telecommunications system.

If you start selling off satellites, the cable companies are going to want the same deal. They'll want to sell off their companies and so on and so on. Once you sell off Rogers, you're selling off broadcasting as well--you're selling out broadcasting as well.

It's all converged. There is no country that is more convergent. You heard an expert from the OECD who came to this committee and talked to you. Well, what he didn't tell you was there is no country in the world--

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

You are talking about a different committee.

[Stephen Waddell]

Oh, I'm sorry. That was the industry committee. Sorry. I've been on a lot of committees lately.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stephen Waddell]

At the industry committee, the OECD representative said there is no other country like Canada...that is as convergent as Canada in terms of media concentration and media ownership. We're different. We have to be concerned about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You may have one very short question, Madame Lavallée.

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

I sat on the Standing Committee on Industry and can tell you that convergence is not the only factor we must consider. In fact, given the digitization of the media, mobile phones already are, and will increasingly become, broadcasting devices. Some countries already want to use them for broadcasting their television programming. France, among others, announced its intention to do so on Friday. They want to use mobile phones as televisions. In addition, in Canada and Quebec, mobile phones became broadcasting agents when smartphones with 16 applications were made available to users. In such cases, cultural choices have to be made. Another factor to consider is the arrival of “mobisodes,” television episodes for the mobile phone. They are similar to “webisodes,” which are available on the Internet. For instance, Quebeckers can watch “webisodes” of Têtes à claques and Les chroniques d'une mère indigne. Now, we are going to be able to watch “mobisodes” on our phones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I have to interrupt. I don't think there's any time to answer that, because I have given you almost two minutes extra.

Mr. Angus, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very interested in following up on this discussion on collective licensing and the need to find revenue streams for artists in a digital age.

At the National Post, which doesn't often pat the NDP on the back, they were talking about Minister Moore's comments about the levy. They said that while “we're on the fence” about the levy, they were not on the fence about “the government's nonsensical, 'Boo! Hiss! No new taxes!' response...which is just dumb...”.

The Edmonton Journal said they felt that updating the levy was “a perfectly reasonable compromise”, but that “to hear the Harper government tell it, it's the Boston Tea Party circa 2010”. They went on to say that Minister of Industry Tony Clement was “misrepresenting its contents” and said, “Heritage Minister James Moore--who you might think would defend creators--also distorted” this “suggestion”.

The Edmonton Journal went on to say, “The Tories are clearly playing pandering politics; let's hope the other opposition parties--and independently-minded Conservatives--sign on to a thoughtful compromise that upholds the basic Canadian values of straight dealing”.

Why do you think this government and this minister, the consumer minister, have taken it upon themselves to come out so hard in attacking the right of artists to get paid for copying?

[Stephen Waddell]

Mr. Angus, that's an excellent question. I don't know. I really don't understand why our minister, the minister who should, as you say, be defending artists in this country, is attacking them and proposing to take money out of--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Stephen Waddell]

--artists' pockets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has done no such thing. He has never attacked artists in this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You can use your own five minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You have a lot of time, Mr. Del Mastro.

I want to go on. Minister Moore said the levy is “a real threat” and they will “fight this...every step of the way”. He then justified it by saying that because money is paid to the Canada Council for the Arts, taxpayers are already giving musicians more money, so therefore the levy is irrelevant.

I'm trying to get the idea behind this concept because I don't know of any other state in the western world where, because taxpayers support an arts fund, consumers are exempt from copyright. Is there any logic to this? That because we have a Canada Council you don't have a right to get money from the levy?

[Stephen Waddell]

I don't understand the thinking on this at all, Mr. Angus. It's quite clear that we see this levy and other forms of collective licensing as the way forward. It's not only the way forward for artists. It's the way forward for record companies. It's the way forward for film and television companies.

It's the way forward for all elements of the industry to make money in the digital environment: through a form of collective licensing. It's the only way we see, and it has been proven in Europe and elsewhere, that collective licensing makes sense. It's economical. It distributes moneys to makers and to creators. It's very efficient. And it gives access to consumers to use content on multiple platforms and allows format shifting. It has everything that one wants in a system in the new digital environment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

And for mechanical royalties and other forms of royalty payments that are part of the Copyright Act, none of that money goes through the government?

[Stephen Waddell]

That's correct.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's a separate transparent exchange for use of artists' copyrighted works.

[Stephen Waddell]

That's correct.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do you think it would set a dangerous precedent if you had a minister running around saying that artists getting paid is an unfair tax, that consumers deserve lower taxes? Do you think that undermines the whole principle, not just of collective licensing, but of the whole mechanical and royalty system that we've set up in Canada with the Copyright Board?

[Stephen Waddell]

As I said before, I'm surprised by the minister's position and by the government's position on this levy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.