Evidence of meeting #156 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was extension.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
That makes sense.
One thing you talked about was that there's a patchwork of programs out there. What would you recommend be done about that?
First of all, what is the patchwork? Could you explain what you mean? Which programs are they or could you cite some examples, so that we all understand what you mean by that?
Then, what would you recommend be done about that group of programs?
Senior Scholar, Basic Income Canada Network
The patchwork has to do with a series of categorical programs for people with disabilities, for families with children and for seniors, and there are only very meagre programs for the working-age population. They're largely left out.
A basic income is what we propose to do about it. This is, at its full implementation, a universal benefit that has no conditions and, in a sense, is an entitlement and a right of citizenship. It eliminates the kinds of problems we saw with COVID when existing programs were inadequate and new programs were put into place. They needed to be put into place, but there were many inequalities in those new programs.
For example, if we look at the CERB and the CRB, they didn't apply to people who may have had additional costs because of COVID but hadn't earned at least $5,000 in the previous year. There were people falling through the cracks, so a basic income, by definition, eliminates most of those cracks by having a single program structure.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Just for my clarity as to what you're recommending, am I hearing you say that a basic income, if it's the appropriate amount with the appropriate criteria and structure—I realize there's a lot of detail here to be thought through and understood—would then replace those programs? Is that what we're talking about, or would it be supplemental to them?
Senior Scholar, Basic Income Canada Network
It would replace many programs. It would replace those programs meant to meet basic needs, but it wouldn't replace those programs meant to meet special needs, like the variable costs of medication, which some households don't experience at all and some experience in very large amounts, and like the additional costs related to having a disability.
We take the term “basic income” seriously. It's meant to meet basic needs and can be partially funded by eliminating other programs meant to meet basic needs.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I appreciate that.
I have about 30 seconds left, so I have a quick question that I hope you can answer quickly.
Can you give us a sense of what amount of money we're talking about for the individual? Also, more broadly, if you know this, how much would be required for the government to make this possible?
Chairperson, Basic Income Canada Network
We have done modelling, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done modelling based on our parameters. Our amount was replicated by CERB, actually. We published this right before COVID hit.
That's what a mature basic income looks like so that it really does provide a sufficient amount to allow people to meet their basic needs. Not everybody's going to get that amount. Some will get less, but the important thing now is to start. We know that full program, that national framework, is needed, because we're talking about provincial programs too, and those social assistance programs are the ones that really don't work and are punishing people and making them sick. We need a mature system. We need a national program, and that's not going to happen overnight.
What we want in this budget is a start with the programs that already exist and can deliver that unconditional income to whatever extent is possible within the budget, because people are really hurting, and any amount at this point is going to help keep people housed and keep people from resorting to crime to meet their needs. Taking some risks—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you. I'm sure you'll have another opportunity to speak, but we're well over time.
Now we're going to MP Ste-Marie, please.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for their briefs, their presentations, and their answers to our questions. This is very useful for the report we will be submitting to the government. Like Mr. Baker, I too will not have time to ask all the questions I would have liked to ask all the witnesses, but everything has been duly noted and we are going to pass on the requests.
Mr. Chair, before asking the witnesses my first questions, I want to congratulate you, because earlier today, we met with a delegation from Sweden that included the governor of the central bank and several elected representatives. Frankly, you were more than up to the job when you pronounced several phrases in Swedish for our guests during the presentation and facilitation.
I also want to express my appreciation for the useful interactions of Mr. Kelly, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Sorbara. I also thank the clerk, Mr. Roger, for all the work he did, and the analysts for the preparatory document, which was very useful. And last, my heartfelt thanks to the two interpreters we had, who did a very good job.
Mr. Claus and Mrs. Paré, from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, thank you for being here.
I would ask that you explain the situation again and convince us of the arguments we should use to persuade the Minister of Finance to make the annual contributions to the Canada Music Fund permanent, which was one of the promises the government made, if I understood correctly.
Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
A permanent base fund of about $25 million is in place at present. The difference between that $25 million and $42 million, the actual current figure, is a supplement that has to be periodically renewed.
The announcement that was made in the last budget takes us to the spring of 2026, so we are once again going to have to persuade the Department of Finance to renew this supplementary support. Not knowing whether the funding will still exist 24 months from now is a source of a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability for companies. Investment decisions are made for the short term and that hurts the industry.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
You said clearly that it was important for the programs to be made permanent. When it comes to making the financial support permanent, is this just an announcement that is made for the next two years? How many years should the announcement be valid for? How do you see that? What does the government have to do in order to actually make the programs permanent and end the uncertainty in your industry?
Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
As I explained, more than half of the funding is permanent and we do not need to go back and ask the Department of Finance to grant those funds every year or every two years. It is the additional funds paid in recognition of the industry's needs that have to be renewed. It is those additional funds that we would like to see made permanent, so we no longer have to ask for them to be renewed.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
Should the government see those funds as an expenditure or as an investment in society and the economy?
Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
It is actually an investment. It is an investment in Canadian culture and identity. The music companies are part of a prototyping industry: They take risks on an artist and sometimes it works, or it doesn't work. When it works, the profits are reinvested in other music projects that ensure there is musical diversity throughout Canada.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
Now, regarding the Copyright Act, can you explain the revision you want to see to the definition of “sound recording” again? What is the problem?
Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
I will let my colleague Simon Claus explain that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're having some technical challenges. We will have to come back to Mr. Claus.
Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
The definition of “sound recording” as it appears in the Copyright Act expressly excludes superimposing a musical work or sound recording on an audiovisual product. For example, when a piece of music is used for a film or a television program, neighbouring rights—what is paid to the performers and producers—are not applicable. The creators—the performers and producers—are not remunerated when their work is used in an audiovisual work. The act really does contain this exclusion, and we would like to see it removed.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Your answer is very clear. Thank you.
Mr. Claus, do you want to add something?
Simon Claus Director, Public affairs, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
As Mrs. Paré explained very well, performers and producers of records are precluded from receiving royalties for the use of their works on television and in the cinema. These performers therefore do not receive fair remuneration, because it is not included, while it is for authors and publishers, for example.
We are not asking that remuneration be synchronized; rather, we are asking for fair remuneration when a sound recording and the musical performance are incorporated into the work.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
Are you familiar with the situation in other countries on this subject? Does it work better?
Director, Public affairs, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
We have to remember that the Copyright Act is economic legislation that creates a framework for remunerating rights holders. The act organizes compensation for the various rights holders and is vital to the music industry.
For several years, however, it has been greatly weakened by technological developments, but also by certain decisions that have been made. The requests being made today are intended to “fix” the Copyright Act, which is tending to become obsolete, specifically by modernizing its provisions about private use copying and by revising its definition of “sound recording”.
These are things we see elsewhere, such as in the European Union, where some countries have decided to revise their laws because they were out of sync with how our industries operate today. The purpose of both of our requests is purely to bring us into line with our partners, because this remuneration is provided for in other countries.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you.
So you are asking that the provisions on private use copying of sound recordings or musical works be technologically neutral, as is the case in other countries. There have been advances made in this regard in other countries, and you are asking that the act be amended to this effect as well. Is that correct?
Director, Public affairs, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo
That's correct.
In some countries of the European Union, these private use copying provisions are applied to telephones, even second-hand ones, and this has not resulted in any increase in the cost of those devices. European countries are not flocking to Canada to buy their smart phones because the Copyright Act in Canada contains no provisions on private use copying.