Evidence of meeting #21 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was broadcasting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
The money that can be obtained in the form of compensation or contributions from these media doesn't necessarily increase the visibility of French-language music or Canadian content.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
No.
Obviously, visibility is important. We want people to listen to our music. This also has an impact beyond the Internet. People buy concert tickets and T-shirts, for example. It's fundamental. The music is also used in audiovisual productions. Many things stem from the contact between—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Ms. McPherson, you are next for two and a half minutes, please.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have the privilege of having the last two and a half minutes of the Bill C-10 study, which is exciting. I am going to go to Mr. Payette for the final two and a half minutes.
Mr. Payette, you spoke earlier and it triggered something for me. You talked a lot about user-generated content, of course, and why it's important that it is defined so much more clearly.
You said that you felt the testimony that was brought forward by Mr. Ripley to this committee was misleading. I wonder if you could speak a little more about that. Knowing that this is the last testimony we will hear on Bill C-10, could you make sure we understand clearly about the user-generated content?
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
I really wanted to point out that services such as YouTube already identify professional cultural content. It isn't an issue for these services, at least in terms of music. In order to pay the rights holders that I represent, these services must collect metadata. They have a very sophisticated copyright and content management system. It isn't difficult to distinguish between amateur content and professional music, and they know this. That's why I thought that Mr. Ripley's comments weren't accurate. It was perhaps the result of a lack of knowledge regarding the technical operation of platforms.
In any case, an act shouldn't focus only on technical matters. The act will be around for 30 years. You must set objectives and broaden the scope of the act. You must then give the CRTC the tools needed to study the act and to see how technology and situations change so that it can react and make adjustments and so that our culture can continue to reach its audience. This is the key component of the Broadcasting Act.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If that is not done and we don't see the content regulated adequately, would you be able to support Bill C-10 as it currently stands, in its current iteration?
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
The current situation isn't right. Bill C-10, as it stands, isn't right either. The political will to make amendments is timely. We've heard this from the minister and I've spoken with several parties about this. It isn't really an issue.
We really need amendments to the legislation. The Broadcasting Act should be seen as cultural legislation. The distribution methods will change. The business models will change. Canadians will be watching content, but will it be our cultural content? That's the issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
I'm sorry again, Mr. Payette. Don't take it personally; it's just the clock. You were up against the clock.
Thank you to all of our guests for coming in today. I want to thank Ms. Catherine Edwards from CACTUS, Alex Freedman from the Community Radio Fund and Jérôme Payette from APEM.
Thank you, everyone.
Ms. McPherson, do you have a point of order?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No. I just want to bring up some committee business once our guests have left. It's regarding the motions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Here is what I'm going to do. I'm going to jump ahead a bit and perhaps overstep my boundaries a little. The motions are quite substantial, and we have two motions that are very similar, with one modification, one change.
Here's what I propose. The one key difference in these two motions, which I just went through again, is that the end of Ms. McPherson's motion requires—and I'm going to read this directly—“that the committee present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of this motion”. In the other material, they are quite similar.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The number of meetings is the same. It's three, from what I can glean from this.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. One of them says “up to” and one of them says “at least”. I think there is some difference in that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, okay. My apologies. I'm glad you pointed that out. You are correct. I was thinking three but it is “up to three”.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I couldn't even remember what “adjournment” meant, so I think we can....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Is it possible to collectively come together on this to come up with a motion? In other words, can we find agreement on the two things that are changed here: “up to three” and the 180 days to report back? May I suggest to Mr. Dong that we suspend for a bit?
Would you like to have a discussion about that, Mr. Dong? I'm going to recognize only you on this particular issue.
Mr. Dong.
Liberal
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like some clarification from you or the clerk, depending on who is best to respond.
I have a point of order as to whether—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. Mr. Rayes wants a clarification from the clerk. Let me deal with that first.
Mr. Dong, I'll come back to you.
Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My point of order concerns our meeting, which was scheduled to end at 3 o'clock.
It appears that we are extending the meeting. I think that to do so, we need the consent of the members of the committee. On the other hand, I don't know whether we need unanimous consent or the consent of a majority of the committee members to proceed with the extension.
At this time, since we are past the hour, I would like you to clarify this situation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I understand, Mr. Rayes. Sorry to cut you off.
Usually, when the times are set, it's taken as consent that we leave at that time, but it's not written in stone, per se, unless you move a motion to adjourn. Otherwise we would just keep going. That's normally what we've done. It's more of a convention than anything else. The meeting isn't done until it is officially adjourned. We use the times as a guideline, a placeholder, more than anything else. Unless you want to move a motion to adjourn, we're going to keep this going, as we talked about earlier.
Mr. Dong, go ahead.
