Evidence of meeting #114 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was creators.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Solange Drouin  Vice-President of Public Affairs and Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)
Sophie Prégent  Vice-President, Artisti
Annie Morin  General Manager, Artisti
Ian MacKay  President, Re:Sound Music Licensing Company
Greg Johnston  President, Songwriters Association of Canada
Damhnait Doyle  Vice-President, Board of Directors, Songwriters Association of Canada
Graham Flack  Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

We'll begin because we're running a bit late.

Welcome, everyone, to the 114th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We are continuing our study of remuneration models for artists and creative industries.

I don't know whether our witnesses are here. I don't think the people from Artisti have arrived yet.

Is that correct? I see.

We have Solange Drouin from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, and we have

from Re:Sound Music Licensing Company, Ian MacKay; and from the Songwriters Association, we have Greg Johnston and Damhnait Doyle.

Since Artisti isn't here yet, they can join us as we go along.

Then we'll begin with the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo.

8:50 a.m.

Solange Drouin Vice-President of Public Affairs and Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)

Good morning and thank you for this invitation to appear before the committee today.

My name is Solange Drouin. I am Vice-President of Public Affairs and Executive Director of ADISQ. I am speaking on behalf of approximately 250 independent entrepreneurs—producers of sound recordings, entertainment, videos, recording companies, and artist managers—who are responsible, in particular, for the production of 95% of francophone music content in Canada.

The independent industrial structure that characterizes Canadian francophone music production emerged 40 years ago. It is unique in the world: French Canadian artists almost always turn to local entrepreneurs, small and medium-size enterprises, to assist them in producing and marketing their works.

Everywhere else in the world, music production is dominated by three major multinational businesses: Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. In the 1980s, those businesses abandoned our market, which enabled French Canadian artists and entrepreneurs to work together to create a dynamic ecosystem, a true star system, to which the audience here is now attached. This is a situation that should make Canadians and our leaders proud.

The fact nevertheless remains that these companies, the major multinationals, are still operating in our market. They are our competitors. Need we recall that they have massive resources compared to our own? Although the entire music industry has been in turmoil for more than 15 years, the independent businesses I represent have been left distinctly more vulnerable by the transformation of the competitive music market, which has become unfair and unbalanced. That fact must be taken into consideration in this process.

You have invited us to take part in a study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries in a copyright context. The remuneration of Canadian music content creators comes mainly from a combination of revenues and royalties from the exploitation of sound recordings and performances.

To optimize those two elements, the artists' professional entourage devote their energies to effectively marketing the artists' works. You legislators must ensure that all the statutes concerned are as effective as possible. It's simple: no consumption, no revenues. However, where there is consumption without adequate laws, there are no adequate revenues.

The Copyright Act is a pillar of the remuneration of music content creators. It is an economic statute that produces tangible effects for all Canadian content creators.

Consequently, the work you are engaged in will have serious consequences. You finally have an opportunity here to correct many aspects of the act that currently and unfairly deprive content creators of revenue.

As a result of the many exceptions that have been introduced into it over the years, particularly since 2012, the Copyright Act has become a veritable Swiss cheese, thus considerably weakening its scope and causing significant prejudice to rights holders: authors, artists, and producers. This is an incomprehensible situation in a country such as Canada and one that must urgently be terminated. At a time when we are welcoming the world here at home, it would be good for us to make a good impression.

We agree with several of the proposed amendments outlined by the previous witnesses, such as Music Canada, the Canadian Private Copying Collective, or CPCC, the Canadian Independent Music Association, or CIMA, and others that will follow us, such as Re:Sound.

Without providing an exhaustive list, here are the three amendments we specifically request.

First, you must finally eliminate, once and for all, the exemption from payment of royalties on the first $1.25 million of radio revenues so that Canadian content creators can stop subsidizing those businesses—the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, recently said it again—which are still highly profitable today.

Second, you must amend the definition of sound recording so that artists and producers can receive the royalties they are owed when their works are included in the soundtracks of audiovisual works.

Third, it is urgent that you amend the private copying system—which you have heard about—so it applies to all types of devices, such as smartphones and tablets, that are used by music consumers to copy music.

Mr. Macron could tell you all about that because France is doing a lot in this area.

The changes brought about by technology are obviously central to the discussions about this review. The act must clearly be consistent with music consumption practices but currently is not.

An act that is in sync with consumption practices is not an act that aims to reflect recent tools or trends, or else it risks falling constantly behind and mistakenly anticipating changes. On the contrary, it must be as technology-neutral as possible.

New technologies are tools that are available to all players in the music ecosystem, from creator to consumer, and including professional entourages. However, regardless of the tools used, the actions of each individual will remain unchanged. Songwriters write good songs, producers and recording companies promote them, and radio stations broadcast them.

Tools won't save creators. Blockchain technology, for example, might be another way for them to collect royalties from the use of their works. Would that tool be more effective than those that already exist? The question is being discussed, but one thing is certain: failing a strong act that protects works and ensures that royalties are paid for their use, optimizing royalty redistribution tools won't ultimately improve the situation of creators.

To be efficient, the Copyright Act must be attuned to international standards and consumer practices, and it must also serve creators.

I hope no one is unaware of the problems facing people in the music industry, but the scope of their losses bears repeating: Quebec sales of physical sound recordings have fallen 72% since 2004. Sales of digital works, which have never offset that decline, are shrinking as well: they have fallen 42%. For the majors, the large corporations in the music market, streaming has recently spurred a return to growth, but that news must be viewed with caution and a clear mind. Only a handful of artists, international stars who are listened to by millions around the world, enjoy the impact of streaming. One important point is that ADISQ estimates that it takes 30 million hits on these streaming services to make an album profitable. However, last year, the Quebec artist who came closest to that threshold had 8 million hits. That artist is in fact Half Moon Run, a group of anglophone musicians who perform outside the province.

I will conclude by saying that cultural diversity is a cherished principle in Canada. Content creators, authors, artists, and producers are its pillars. When they can't earn a living from their art, that diversity is directly threatened. That's the case today. Fortunately, you have the power to restore strength to an essential tool to ensure the continued existence of diverse and professional Canadian music production.

I hope you understand that urgent action is required. In 2016, ADISQ announced that the music industry was at a tipping point. Two years later, we are unfortunately approaching a point of no return. We need to turn the situation around now.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

I would like to welcome Ms. Annie Morin and Ms. Sophie Prégent from Artisti.

Do you need a little time, or can you make your presentation right away?

8:55 a.m.

Sophie Prégent Vice-President, Artisti

Pardon me, I didn't understand your question.

8:55 a.m.

Vice-President of Public Affairs and Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)

Solange Drouin

She asked you whether you could give your presentation now.

8:55 a.m.

Vice-President, Artisti

Sophie Prégent

Absolutely.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

All right. Then you may do so.

8:55 a.m.

Vice-President, Artisti

Sophie Prégent

Thank you very much.

8:55 a.m.

Annie Morin General Manager, Artisti

Do we have to submit our speaking notes anywhere in particular?

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

The interpreters have them. The clerk will come and pick them up.

8:55 a.m.

Vice-President, Artisti

Sophie Prégent

Ladies and gentlemen, a word about us.

Artisti is a collective management society created by the Union des artistes in 1997. It is the collective copyright management society for French-speaking performers in the field of sound recording.

First, let me emphasize that the Copyright Act is one of the most effective tools we have to ensure the remuneration of artists and to share the wealth that their creations generate.

That said, the act has not changed much over the years. Many of its provisions are now out of step with the context in which performing artists work. We are proposing six recommendations that are intended to make the law fairer and more in tune with reality.

Ms. Morin, you may continue.

9 a.m.

General Manager, Artisti

Annie Morin

Our first recommendation is to extend the private copying regime to all digital audio support and recording devices that make the copying of music possible, not just blank CDs, as is the case today. Generally speaking, the exceptions introduced into the act in 2012 that allow reproduction on devices or reproduction for listening or delayed viewing should provide for financial compensation. Creators should be paid royalties for the use of their work, regardless of the medium used.

Virtually no royalties are now paid for private copying. To give you an order of magnitude, not so long ago, private copying royalties accounted for more than 50% of Canadian royalties paid by Artisti, compared to 7% in 2017.

Our second recommendation is to reinstate the provision requiring broadcasters to pay a tariff when a collecting society can issue them a licence to use for some reproductions, even where exceptions might normally apply.

Subsection 30.9(6) of the act, which is related to this provision, was repealed in 2012. This has contributed to dramatically reducing the fees paid by commercial radio to performers.

The rules in place clearly do not meet the requirements of the three-step test imposed by international treaties. Artisti is asking the legislator to correct this situation and to reintroduce the subsection in question into the act.

9 a.m.

Vice-President, Artisti

Sophie Prégent

Our third recommendation is to treat performances incorporated in music videos as musical performances and not as cinematographic performances. Currently, once a performer authorizes the incorporation of his or her performance into a cinematographic work, including a video clip, he or she automatically waives his or her copyright for that use. For example, a performer whose performance is captured on video and is also audio-recorded may only exercise copyright or receive equitable remuneration when his or her sound performance is dissociated from the video.

Yet, a video clip is neither more nor less than a song with images. No song, no video! I do not know anyone who watches a YouTube music video of a song on mute. That person is in fact watching the song. In such a case, depriving the artist of his or her rights is absurd. In our view, it is imperative that Canada ratify the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and extend the exclusive and moral rights of performers in the sound recording industry to all performers.

That brings me to our fourth request.

The definition of sound recording must be changed so that the songs used in movies or TV shows are also covered by fair remuneration. The definition of sound recording which is contained in the act is problematic, since it excludes soundtracks of cinematic works broadcast at the same time as the film. This situation deprives performers of significant revenues, in addition to being discriminatory, since authors and music composers enjoy equivalent royalties for the use of their works. In 2012, the legislator recognized the same rights for performers in the sound recording industry as those of the authors. It is therefore difficult to understand that discrimination still exists.

Fifth, it is necessary to find ways to compensate performers for the use of their performances on the Internet. Quebec artists know that revenues from the streaming of their works are ridiculously low, even for their most popular songs.

The problem is in fact twofold. Firstly, revenues for non-interactive and semi-interactive webcasting are subject to a derisive REIT tariff set by the Copyright Board of Canada. This tariff is almost 11 times lower than the one in effect in the United States for the same period.

Revenues for webcasts of on-demand music content such as Spotify or Apple Music are subject to contractual arrangements between artists and producers that provide for the recovery of production costs before the payment of royalties to artists. Given the small sums generated by album sales as well as webcasting on demand, performers obviously too often find themselves deprived of royalties from this commercial exploitation of their performances.

9:05 a.m.

General Manager, Artisti

Annie Morin

Our recommendation has two components.

First, guidelines should be incorporated into the law so that the tariffs of the Copyright Board of Canada align with those that apply to our neighbours to the south or respect agreements between users and collectives, where such agreements exist.

Second, it would be necessary to introduce a right to remuneration for the digital use of performances such as the one advocated by the European group Fair Internet for Performers. In addition, this tariff should be subject to mandatory collective management by organizations. These measures would provide the performers with income in return for the massive use of their performances on the Internet. Better still, the act could be amended to ensure that fair compensation rules apply even to webcasting on demand. The royalties for this equitable remuneration would be paid half to the performers and half to the producers of sound recordings, as is currently the case for radio royalties.

Our last recommendation is very simple. It is time to abolish the exemption that allows broadcasters to evade the obligation of paying fair compensation royalties on the first $1.25 million of their annual advertising revenues. This exemption, adopted in 1997, was intended to be transitional and temporary. It responded to a particular context, which no longer exists. Twenty years later, the abolition of this measure is urgent. This exemption is all the more unfair since it applies only to performers and producers of sound recordings, but not to the authors.

9:05 a.m.

Vice-President, Artisti

Sophie Prégent

I will conclude by asking a question: why do we find it so hard to recognize the value of the performer when talking about music? Current practices do not adequately recognize the performer's contribution and risk-taking. The artist also invests, in a very personal way. They spend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours developing their talent. Their investment and their contribution must be fully recognized. Our laws must support artists who have to deal with the cultural industry giants, because, as I often say and repeat: there is no culture without the artist.

Thank you.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you. We will now go to Mr. MacKay, from Re:Sound Music Licensing Company, please.

9:05 a.m.

Ian MacKay President, Re:Sound Music Licensing Company

Thank you. My name is Ian MacKay. I'm the President of Re:Sound Music Licensing Company. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today on this critical issue. This is something I am particularly passionate about, having worked in the music industry for 25 years as an artist lawyer at record companies and now in my present role.

Remuneration models for artists must adequately incentivize and compensate creators if you want those creators to continue to create. As the very talented and Juno award-winning artist William Prince said—and I'm paraphrasing here—if you want me to build you a house, I have to have a reasonable expectation I'm going to be paid.

As you've heard from many others, the Canadian recorded music industry has experienced significant disruption, shifting from an economy of dollars to one of pennies. There are critical changes needed to address outdated and unnecessary subsidies and exemptions that are unfairly preventing creators from receiving fair compensation for their work.

Where does Re:Sound fit in this? Well, you've heard from other witnesses about equitable remuneration. Luc Fortin, the president of the Quebec Musicians' Guild, told you in his testimony that this revenue stream is now the most significant that Canadian performers have under the Copyright Act in terms of income.

Re:Sound is the organization that collects and distributes equitable remuneration in Canada on behalf of more than 621,000 artists and sound recording owners whom we represent directly through our member organizations—Artisti, which is here today, along with RACS, MROC, CONNECT, and SOPROQ—as well as through bilateral agreements with international collective societies.

We're a not-for-profit organization. We collect from thousands of music users, including commercial radio, satellite radio, and individual businesses such as gyms, restaurants, nightclubs, etc. It's mandatory that the rights we administer be collectively administered. Creators cannot prevent businesses from using their recordings or negotiate directly; it's a blanket licence. Creators only get to rely on collecting equitable remuneration after the fact. These income streams are crucial for creators, and they go straight to creators. As has been referenced before, the money Re:Sound collects is split 50-50 between artists and sound recording owners at source.

Both the music industry and the copyright laws that govern it must keep pace with the rate of technological change. This is why we at Re:Sound are always working hard to innovate. We do this by working with organizations such as SOCAN on streamlining the licensing process for businesses, or as Mark Schaan, the director general at Industry mentioned in his testimony on May 22, we do things like “music has value” research, doing research to help music users understand how music brings value to their business and how they can use it as a competitive advantage.

We also work to ensure we distribute royalties as efficiently as possible. This is reflective in our work to obtain full radio logs from radio stations and our work with Music Canada and Bell Media to improve reporting of data to ensure that we distribute as much of every dollar to creators as possible.

We, and most importantly creators, are missing out because of outdated, unnecessary, and unfair exemptions in the Copyright Act that deprive creators of over $60 million a year in income. As you've heard from artists like Andrew Morrison of The Jerry Cans, artists' representatives such as the Canadian Federation of Musicians and Artisti here today, and organizations representing music creators including Music Canada, ADISQ, CIMA, and SOCAN, these are fundamental issues that need to be fixed.

It's rare to get this type of consensus. I think the only other issue on which there's been similar consensus is on the reform of the copyright board.

The two things that I want to talk about in particular, because they're closest to what we do, are the removal of the $1.25-million radio royalty exemption and the definition of “sound recording”. You've already heard from other people about this, so I will keep it brief and try to add a little bit more information.

Under the current act, as you've already heard, commercial radio stations are exempt from paying royalties to performers and sound recording owners on the first $1.25 million in revenue, regardless of whether the station is part of a large, profitable ownership group. This costs rights holders $8 million a year in lost income and is unwarranted for a highly profitable industry. It was meant to be a temporary measure, but it still exists 20 years later.

Internationally no other country has a similar exemption, and the exemption does not apply to songwriter and publishing royalties, meaning that performers and record labels are the only ones asked to subsidize a very profitable industry.

Some 81% of the programming time of commercial radio is music. Going back to William Prince's comment, 81% of the house is music and it should be paid out accordingly, with no subsidies or exemptions.

Furthermore, in terms of technological neutrality this subsidy is only available to commercial radio broadcasters. It's not available to other users of music who use music commercially, such as satellite radio, pay audio, and other businesses. It's not technologically neutral.

The second one is amending the definition of “sound recording”, a concern you've heard from other people as well. Under the current act, the definition of “sound recording” precludes artists and sound recording owners from receiving any royalties when their recordings are performed in TV and film soundtracks. Once again, this only applies to artists and sound recording owners, depriving them of, our estimate would be, approximately $55 million a year in lost royalties. When music is used in a TV show or a movie on Netflix, the composer, music publisher, and songwriter are paid, but the performers and sound recordings are not. This puts us out of step both between rights holders and internationally.

Re:Sound is also a member of the Canadian Music Policy Coalition that you've heard about. We support the recommendations outlined in the documents submitted on its behalf, many of which have been explained far more eloquently by others who have already appeared before the committee. These recommendations include continuing the important work that has been started regarding Copyright Board reform. We've been a very active participant in that process, which Artisti referred to as well. We recommend updating the private copying levy to make it technologically neutral. You've heard from a number of people in depth on that. We also recommend extending the terms of copyright for authors from 50 to 70 years. You heard very eloquently from SOCAN on that. Finally, we recommend closing the charitable exemption loophole created by section 32.2(3), which, once again, Gilles Daigle of SOCAN brought forward on June 5.

These, along with eliminating the $1.25 million exemption and fixing the sound recording definition, would make a profound difference for Canadian creators and bring us up to international standards.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to any questions.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

For our final presentation, we're turning to the Songwriters Association of Canada and Mr. Johnston and Ms. Doyle.

9:15 a.m.

Greg Johnston President, Songwriters Association of Canada

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Greg Johnston. I'm the president of the Songwriters Association of Canada.

On behalf of the SAC, I'd like to express our thanks for the invitation and the opportunity to appear before this committee. In addition, we would like to applaud the committee's efforts to hear directly from creators.

The SAC is a registered national arts organization with approximately 1,200 members dedicated to educating, assisting, and representing Canadian songwriters. We exist to nurture, develop, and protect the creative, business, and legal interests of music creators in Canada and around the world by pursuing the right to benefit from and receive fair compensation for the use of their work; the advancement of the craft and enterprise of songwriting; and the development of activities that allow members to reach out and enjoy the sense of community shared by creators.

Our volunteer board of directors is made up of professional songwriters from across the country. Diversity and regional representation are priorities when selecting the board's slate of directors.

It should be noted that the SAC is a signatory to “Sounding Like a Broken Record: Principled Copyright Recommendations from the Music Industry”, a document prepared by the members of the Canadian Music Policy Coalition. This document has been presented to Minister Mélanie Joly and the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is our opinion that the recommendations put forth are actionable and would directly benefit creators.

I am a multi-instrumentalist session musician. I am a record producer. I am a songwriter. I am an audio/visual composer. I am also an entrepreneur, a small business owner, a taxpayer, a volunteer, a husband, and a father of two teenage musicians. I'm not a lobbyist, a copyright expert, or a lawyer, although there are a few on our board of directors.

I am also anonymous, like so many of my colleagues. We're the middle class of the music creator community and, quite simply put, two decades of disruptive technologies have left my community facing very difficult realities.

The way songwriters are remunerated for use of their works deserves special consideration. We are paid per purchase, per stream, and per public performance, which makes strong regulatory environments crucial to our financial success. As individuals, our voices are rarely heard, which is why we rely on and support collective management to represent our community's interests. In Canada, we are fortunate to have SOCAN represent our performing rights domestically and internationally. However, the speed at which technology develops demands that our collective management organizations be allowed to adapt and protect our rights as quickly.

On Copyright Board reform, the SAC believes that a strong, nimble, well-funded, and adequately staffed Copyright Board is a cornerstone to our success and survival. In a new digital reality, the speed at which tariffs are ruled upon and implemented is crucial. The technology sector has built staggering fortunes, many of which have been built on the backs of creators and their content. This David and Goliath dichotomy is simply unsustainable.

These, however, are the opportunities where government, in co-operation with the Copyright Board, can create a regulatory framework that serves technology, consumers—our fans—and the creators themselves. It is our opinion that strong, decisive action to reform the Copyright Board is a win for creators, a win for the little guy, and ultimately a win for consumers and fans, who we believe truly want and would even insist that creators be fairly remunerated.

June 7th, 2018 / 9:15 a.m.

Damhnait Doyle Vice-President, Board of Directors, Songwriters Association of Canada

Thank you, Greg, and thank you to the committee members for conducting this review. I must say that after hearing everybody speak, I'm a bit emotional. This is a very important topic for Canada and for all citizens.

My name is Damhnait Doyle. I'm the Vice-President of the Songwriters Association of Canada. I have been in this industry for 25 years, and I have only seen the standard of living decrease for those of us who have chosen to make this our profession. It is that—a profession, a highly skilled trade. We get up in the morning, get our kids off to school, and go to work, just as you do. We create the content for radio stations to play on your drive to work, for the DJ to play at your daughter's wedding, for your favourite album that you stream off the Internet when you have a dinner party.

When you signed on to this job—and thank you very much for being here today—you negotiated your salary, your health benefits, and your vacation days. If you were told, “I'm sorry, there are some issues going on with the government, and you are not going to be paid”, would you still be here today? How would you pay your mortgage, your health care, your child care?

I sit here today not getting paid but paying for after-school child care, so I can paint a vivid picture about the hard truths of the poverty affecting creators today. I wish I could use the term “middle class”, but the middle class of creators has been eviscerated at this point. I know only one musician in Toronto who has bought a house in the last 10 years; most cannot pay their rent, let alone go to the dentist.

I'm not talking about failed artists here. I'm talking about very high-profile, award-winning creators, people whose songs you know and love, who simply cannot make a living. It used to be shameful to say, as a creator, that you were struggling, because perhaps it looked like a reflection of your artistic merit, but we now are all in the same leaky boat.

I consider myself a very fortunate songwriter and musician. I have a hefty catalogue of songs, which I have placed in film and television in more than 100 countries. I've had several top five radio hits. I've won East Coast Music awards, SOCAN awards, Canadian Radio Music awards, and I've been nominated for several JUNO awards. I've performed here on Parliament Hill for Canada Day, toured with Willie Nelson, and played all over the world as far as Japan and Afghanistan, but still I do not make a living from music. Creators are being hammered from all sides, from minimized streaming income to piracy to outdated exemptions for big business. Everyone is getting paid in the music industry. They are. The only people not getting paid are creators.

Ten to 15 years ago, this was a very different story, but the entire ecosystem is sinking at the precipice. The water is rising, and it's rising fast. We need to stimulate the cultural economy before there are no more new artists and writers.

This brings me to copyright term extension. We need to get in line with the majority of our trading partners and extend the copyright term to life of the author plus 70 years. At life plus 50, we are way behind modern copyright laws, which puts our writers and rights holders at a serious disadvantage, not only in our country but globally. The loss of this income for Canadian publishers means less money spent developing new writers, which means fewer artists, fewer musicians, fewer studios, fewer touring crews, and fewer jobs all around.

As for the degradation of intellectual property as an asset, I liken it to buying a house. What if you passed that house down to your children; then, 50 years after your death, your children are kicked out of the house that they grew up in? Our laws are consistent with only minimum protections from the 100-year-old Berne convention, when 50 years was meant to cover two generations of descendants. This is not in line with current life expectancies.

I sit before you knowing that as writers, musicians, and creators, our impact in the culture in this country is immeasurable, and we do deserve to get paid for our work.

Thank you very much.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

Now we will begin the period of questions and comments.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for seven minutes.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To start off, I would like to thank each of you for being here today, and I would like to thank you for your clearly felt testimony, which comes from the heart. Thank you for proposing all these amendments. That's very important in the context of our study.

I will begin with Mr. Johnston and Ms. Doyle.

I see that the study was previously done in 2014, but I don't know whether you commissioned it. The study concerned remuneration models for creative industries.

Could you tell us what emerged from that study. Are there any differences four years later? If so, what are they?

9:25 a.m.

President, Songwriters Association of Canada

Greg Johnston

I am not quite certain what specific study you're referring to in 2014.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

I have in hand a study by the Songwriters Association of Canada. So I suppose you commissioned it. If I understand correctly, you aren't aware of this study.

9:25 a.m.

President, Songwriters Association of Canada

Greg Johnston

What is the title of the study, sir?