House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
Motion No. 48 will be voted on separately and in consequence Motion No. 49 will be voted on according to the result of the vote on Motion No. 48. The vote on Motion No. 49 depends on the outcome of the vote on Motion No. 48.
Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB
Madam Speaker, we completed the vote on Motion No. 48 already. It was defeated unanimously-
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
It was deferred. The entire group was deferred. Motion No. 48 was deferred. Motion No. 49 is deferred automatically.
Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB
Madam Speaker, I do not want to delay things but I have the report stage order from the Table. It says that the question on Motion No. 49 is put if the question on Motion No. 48 is negatived. Motion No. 48 was negatived but Motion No. 49 was not put.
Before we move on to Group No. 2, I would ask that the question on Motion No. 49 be put.
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
I repeat to the hon. parliamentary secretary that the vote on Motion No. 48 has been deferred.
We will now move to Group No. 2.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 5 with the following: a ) section 3, in the case of a work, or''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-32, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 7.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-32, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 38 on page 16, 1 to 48 on page 17, 1 to 43 on page 18, 1 to 40 on.page 19, 1 to 44 on page 20, 1 to 14 on page 21, 6 to 45 on page 22, 1 to 44 on page 23, 1 to 40 on page 24, 1 to 44 on page 25 and 1 to 16 on page 26.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 76 with the following:
"do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21,"
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 76 with the following:
"mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the"
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-32, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 77 with the following:
"person to do an act mentioned in section 3 or 21, as the case may be, the collective"
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32 and to reflect a bit on my own experience as a broadcaster.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
I want to declare my background right off the bat so that people do not suggest I am in conflict, which I thought I heard from across the way.
As someone who comes from a broadcasting background, it is important to point out that there are many aspects of Bill C-32 that do not reflect the reality of broadcasting across the country today. Indeed, in Bill C-32 we see all kinds of impediments to doing what I think the government is hoping to do through this legislation. The government seems to want to protect the rights of copyright holders and to ensure that ultimately Canadian culture is strengthened. Unfortunately some aspects of Bill C-32 actually prevent that from happening and I want to touch on some of them.
One of the concerns I have as a broadcaster by trade, and I think I can speak with a little authority on this, is the whole aspect of time shifting. One of the concerns that broadcasters have raised over and over again is that the legislation does not permit broadcasters to delay the broadcast of a television or radio program and replay it at a later date without incurring additional expense and seeking the permission from the holders of the rights to do that.
It makes it extremely difficult for a small radio station or small broadcast outlet to seek the permission of the various rights' holders to do that. It escapes me why when there has been such a strong lobby from people in the broadcast industry to make what is just a common sense change that the government has failed utterly to do that.
I know some members on the other side are trying to make that happen and some amendments have been proposed. We are very happy that members on the other side are trying to do that. For nine years this legislation has been in the works. For nine years people have made the same point over and over again to successive governments. Apparently their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It is a common sense change.
If that type of change is not made, it is going to hurt Canadian content. It is going to hurt the ability of broadcasters to broadcast local parades on the community cable channel. It is going to hurt the ability of broadcasters to do the sorts of things that have made them an integral part of the Canadian cultural scene. That is one of the major problems that many broadcasters have with this legislation.
Something else that concerns me very much is the whole idea of transfer of format. A new reality in the broadcast industry-it has been a reality for a few years now-is that many broadcasters have to transfer a recording from, for instance, a CD on to the electronic format, to the computer.
One of the things the government has resisted forever is allowing broadcasters the right to make that transfer without subjecting themselves to a legal challenge. In fact, broadcasters have raised that over and over again. It is quite possible that, by going ahead and transferring something from CD on to computer, the rights'
holders will then ask that they be paid for the privilege of having their music transferred on to a computer.
The computer then plays it over the air. Under that circumstance, broadcasters will have to pay the right's holder already. Potentially radio and television broadcasters are being charged a couple of times for something that really has only the effect of being played once on the air. In other words, the holder of the rights suffers no commercial loss. However, it imposes a tremendous burden on the broadcasters.
That is something that needs to be pointed out. Broadcasters have been very patient with the government on this point. They have raised it over and over ad nauseam. Somehow the government has failed to see the value in this approach. All the broadcasters are asking for is a common sense exemption.
In order to make the point more fully, it is important to mention the role that broadcasters play in the Canadian cultural scene. For a number of years, broadcasters have had regulations imposed on them whereby they have to play 30 per cent Canadian content. They play thousands and thousands, really millions, of hours worth of music every year to promote Canadian artists and composers. Under previous legislation, the composers received all kinds of money back from the broadcasters through the current copyright legislation.
The artists made millions of dollars by selling their records. There was a quid pro quo exchange between the broadcasters who were able to give the artists all kinds of what amounts to free promotion on the air and the radio stations were able to use the music to attract listeners and, ultimately, to sell advertising and make a profit.
It was a system that worked extremely well. For reasons that escape me, the government has decided to change something that is not broken, to fix a problem that did not need fixing and has caused a firestorm of controversy.
That has been reflected not only in opposition from parties like the Reform Party but even among Liberal ranks where a number of people have great concerns about what is being proposed. A number of members on the other side have propose amendments and have spoken out quite strongly against this legislation.
That should not be lost on us because it takes considerable courage to do that in the Liberal Party, knowing that the government may slap sanctions on those members. Some of them will not be rewarded when it comes time for the Prime Minister to hand out some of the goodies that he is able to hand out. We should note that they have done this. It points to how serious they feel an assault it is on their community radio stations and ultimately on the cultural sector.
For a number of years radio stations in Canada have been in a perilous position. Many of them lose money today. Most AM radio stations are in a position where they simply cannot make ends meet. The government is somehow insensitive to this fact and is slapping all kinds of new regulations on broadcasters of various sizes. The ultimate result will be that they will be bearing new costs.
We have made a point of saying over and over and over again that high taxes and regulation kill jobs in the Canadian economy. I do not think we want to kill the jobs created by Canadian radio stations that provide tremendous services to their local communities, reflect the values of their local communities, and completely bring together all disparate strands in the local community in one place so that people understand what is happening on a daily basis, in fact every minute of every day. This is something that happens through no other media form.
We should be sensitive to this point and ensure that bills like Bill C-32 do not end up killing a very important institution like Canadian radio broadcasting.
Guy Arseneault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate to clarify a few points.
There was some concern in the Reform Party with regard to the ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions. That opinion was expressed in committee by a number of members. The government listened to the members, our caucus, the opposition and the witnesses, and they are in the bill. There is an ephemeral exception. There is a transfer of format exception. I take the member at his word. If they are in there he will support them and the process will be speedy. That is why they are there. That is part of the negotiation game.
After the amendments came out of the committee in December there were concerns that perhaps telethons and Santa Claus parades were not protected. We felt they were already in the bill, but the government decided to clarify them even more. The amendments are there.
With regard to whether they got the amendments late and did not get a chance to analyse them, to a certain extent that is fair game but in written form they only had them today.
Last evening I had a chance to indicate to the hon. member that ephemeral and transfer of format exceptions, telethons or whatever were there and that I would be available to meet with him after to explain the amendments.
We are parliamentarians. There should be respect and honour in this place. The bill is before the House. We were fair with the way
in which we handled a situation the Reform Party asked about this morning. We collaborated and we would like to see the same collaboration.
For instance, putting up speakers for the sake of speaking is not a way of collaborating. The hon. member who just spoke is very knowledgeable of the subject. He also spoke when it was first introduced in the House. I appreciate some of the comments he made. It gave me a chance to reflect.
However his comments would have been better placed in Group No. 7 which deals with ephemeral, transfer of format, telethons and radio stations rather than Group No. 2.
Guy Arseneault Liberal Restigouche—Chaleur, NB
You have already spoken. I have heard that message.
We have clarified those aspects. There is ephemeral. There is transfer of format. I look forward to the support of the Reform Party on the bill rather than delay and delay and delay. The time has come to get on with it. There is other business of the House than Bill C-32 that we must get on with. This is a very important bill. The producers, the creators and the users have been waiting for the bill.
What damage are we doing to the relationship between the creators and the users if we continually say that this is here and that is there and it is not so? It is important to create a good working relationship. Both sides want this clarified now, right away.
That is what we are doing. We have put forward the bill. We have our amendments and we are putting them forward today. Let us clarify it and get on with the work of the House so that the creators and the users can get on with their business as well.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-32.
The first time I spoke in the House, on January 24, 1994, I immediately announced where I stood. I said: "Moving to the complex issue of copyright, I would like to point out that creators are currently out in the cold and that the government will have to act quickly by tabling as soon as possible a bill to correct this unfortunate situation".
I am delighted that the government has tabled this bill, that we are now at report stage and that very extensive amendments have been made. We know that we will have to keep up our efforts, because the bill is not completely finished, there will be a Phase III, but I am very pleased to see Phase II being wrapped up.
I would urge the third party to give its co-operation so that we can proceed with debate on a non-partisan basis and move quickly to give creators in Canada a bill that will help them improve their living conditions.
I think it extremely important that we leave partisan politics behind in this issue, and it is upsetting that the member for Medicine Hat spent 10 minutes telling us that he comes from a broadcasting background and forgot to mention that the bill requires a radio station to make over $1.25 million in advertising revenue before it is required to pay royalties. In other words, the station is required to pay only $100.
He spoke for 10 minutes but did not mention this fundamental fact. It is an objective piece of information contained in the bill and I think the member for Medicine Hat acted in very bad faith by failing to mention it when he spoke in the House.
The purpose of Bill C-32 is to amend the Copyright Act, which was passed in 1924. The first review of this act, in 1988, solved certain problems, notably by increasing creators' moral rights over their works and recognizing the organization of copyright holders into collective societies. The mandate of these societies is to authorize, on behalf of their members, public performances and reproductions, and to collect and distribute royalties or levies payable in exchange for these authorizations.
Society has evolved considerably since then, and there have been artistic, technological and legal developments in the cultural industry. Internationally, intellectual property has become a resource just as important as money or natural resources. New techniques have led to an explosion in artistic distribution and it is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that creators are protected by law.
The Bloc Quebecois has resolutely supported creators in all sectors of the cultural industry. Our efforts seem to have been successful because a number of amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois have been adopted by the heritage committee in one form or another, and we are pleased that we have kept a watchful eye on this bill so that there is finally something to show for creators in Canada.
The bill's amendments to the Copyright Act deal primarily with recognition of performers' and producers' neighbouring rights, the establishment of royalties for private copies and the definition of exceptions to creators' rights.
I mentioned earlier that when radio stations broadcast music or songs, authors and composers receive copyright fees, while performers, musicians and producers do not. Bill C-32 provides a remedy in this respect. Now, musicians, performers and producers will also benefit from neighbouring rights.
These rights are recognized in the 50 countries that signed the Rome Convention. Once Parliament has passed this bill, Canada will be able to sign the convention, and our performers will also be able to benefit from this protection when their work is distributed abroad, and collect royalties as well.
According to a report prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage, neighbouring rights are an important tool for the future, especially with the advent of digital cable radio which will broadcast good music, uninterrupted by radio hosts or commercials. This type of broadcast will be a major source of income for artist-performers and record producers if the neighbouring rights system is introduced. That is why it is so important to proceed diligently with this bill.
Most payments for neighbouring rights will indeed be made by radio stations. As I said before, the bill provides that their income must be in excess of $1.25 million before they have to pay royalties. Otherwise, the fee will be only symbolic, as it will be $100.
Another interesting point is that the bill provides for a legislative review of the act in five years, which will be an opportunity to make some adjustments based on our experience with this legislation. We believe, unlike the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that the concessions made to broadcasters are a little too generous and should perhaps be reviewed downward.
However, it is rather unfortunate that the government did not recognize this right in the case of creators in the audiovisual sector. I hope that in phase III, which will come as soon as possible, the emphasis will be mainly on the audiovisual sector and photography.
As for private copies, every year, millions of audio and video cassettes are sold in this country. Many customers use these cassettes to copy the works of creators without paying copyright, thus depriving them of their living.
For instance, out of 44 million blank audio cassettes sold in this country last year, it is estimated that 39 million were used to make private copies of sound recordings of composers or performers. These copies made at home apparently cost the audio recording industry as much as $324.7 million per year.
Fortunately, the bill provides some compensation by providing for a levy that will be collected from manufacturers or importers of blank audio tapes, and subsequently distributed among authors, composers, performers and record companies.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this kind of measure which already exists in 25 countries, and it has insisted that the amount of the levy be set by the Copyright Board, which is in a position to determine what is fair compensation for the creator, while allowing for the consumer's ability to pay. We appreciate the fact that the Copyright Board has been closely involved in the preparations for this bill and the follow-up, because so far, the board has shown that it is capable of doing an outstanding job.
However, we regret the fact that these rights do not apply as well to video tapes, which leaves creators in the audiovisual sector in limbo.
The bill provides that libraries, educational institutions, museums and archival services will, to a certain extent, be exempted from paying copyright.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that these exemptions which deprive the persons concerned of their due will be difficult to administer and may lead to court cases. Although the exempt institutions are concerned with education and culture, we believe that the support they need should come from government, and that authors who already pay taxes should not have to subsidize them by forgoing income.
The Bloc Quebecois would have preferred to see the legislator leave the question of copyright to the various parties involved. The agreements currently in place between collective societies and users prove that this type of mechanism does work.
Nevertheless, the heritage committee is to be congratulated for having made great strides in tightening up the numerous exceptions in the original version of the bill.
Finally, we must point out the heritage committee's efforts to bring the bill more in line with the concerns of the interested parties. The Bloc Quebecois has presented some 75 amendments, a number of which were accepted by the government, which has finally lent an ear to the artists' legitimate demands. Let us hope that, in future, the government will accept the beneficial influence of the Bloc Quebecois in other areas.
The government must continue to modernize its legislation, and must begin right away to identify the modifications required for Canada to recognize neighbouring rights on videotapes, and the mechanisms required to protect the rights of our artists as the information highway expands.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and these clauses today.
This bill has created a lot of problems for many of my constituents, across the whole range of the clauses dealt with in the bill. In particular, I received yesterday a letter from a company in my riding. That company, for the last 75 years, has been supplying bookstores. As a result of the changes which are being made by this bill, which they see as a major distortion of the marketplace under the excuse of protecting Canadian culture, the book market will be disrupted and it will be very bad for consumers.
This company and my constituents have urged me to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this bill will be a major disadvantage to consumers. It will protect Canadian distributors of books when libraries and universities could have much better direct access to wholesalers in the United States. The protectionism in the bill will not protect Canadian culture at all, it will simply drive up prices and create a very restrictive market within Canada.
I wanted to get that on record. Not only in the many areas that have been discussed earlier but in the area of book distribution this bill is a major problem.
Amendments were introduced today at a moment's notice to the House. We have not had the time to review them properly. We are appalled at the speed at which this bill is moving through the House.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak specifically to the issue of copyright performances, sound recordings and communication signals that are part of this clustering of motions we have.
Before I do that, however, I would say to the parliamentary secretary that there is within the parliamentary system the ability for members of Parliament to be able to converse with each other and to reveal what is coming so there is some prior notice. I respect that.
However, on the other side of the coin I would point to an obscure example but a very accurate one, that the Liberals would say they said they are in favour of an elected Senate and this is what they did with the Constitution and the Charlottetown accord. That measure fell far short of what we are asking for. To have said it is accurate, that the measure was there, but in fact it in no way reflected what we consider to be important.
While I respect and accept the hon. member's comment that there have been provisions put in place in response to some of the concerns that were expressed by me on behalf of our party and on behalf of users, on the other side of the coin the fact that I have not to this point had the opportunity to see what those things are and to pass judgment on what those things are is exactly the problem we are having at this time.
I accept that he would have said these things to me in good faith, that he would have said they have answered our concern. However, by the time this bill becomes an act, by the time it is law, there will be an interpretation either by the copyright board or by the courts.
On behalf of my party and people who have expressed their concerns to me, I want the opportunity to have even a couple of hours to understand the legal implications of the words the government is now coming forward with. It is for this reason that I have been as upset as I have this morning that at the very last minute the government has been trying to put patchwork on to this seriously flawed bill.
With respect to the motions before the House now, there are any number of issues we can speak about in terms of so-called neighbouring rights. For example, the end of clause 1 speaks of the Rome convention country. We do not share airwaves with people in Europe, nor do we share them with people in Australia and other signatories to the Rome convention.
My understanding is that drawing the performers in line with the Rome convention is very commendable. However, our radio stations are sharing airwaves with the people who border the 49th parallel. Until the U.S. decides, if it does decide, to go ahead with neighbouring rights, our broadcasters, in particular in the Windsor-Sarnia area, even in the Toronto area with the Buffalo and Rochester signals, in Montreal with the signals coming in from Vermont, will be at a serious disadvantage by comparison with their U.S. competitors. Many of their U.S. competitors are going after exactly the same advertising dollar.
In her presentation to committee the minister challenged me on behalf of my party. She said "you say your party believes in property rights, that you would see the enshrinement of property rights". A performance right is somewhat parallel to a property right. She was right.
This issue is a case of weighing out the advantage and the disadvantage. It is a case of weighing out who will be benefited or who will be hurt. We are taking a look at the value the performers actually receive from airplay. I grant there is a good argument but not an exceptionally strong argument. If I were to balance it out I would say it is probably 60 per cent in favour of the notion that performers who actually perform their works which are being broadcast should receive some direct recompense from the revenue driven by radio. In my humble judgment there is a 60:40 argument in favour of the artist.
Then I look at the entire picture of the value they receive of the airplay, which is the 40 per cent. People will go to the record store to buy the CDs or cassettes. There is a live performance factor that has been put into this by members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and there is a value that the performers receive. I see that we have close to a balance.
Then I look at the economic damage that will be done to the radio stations. I look at the fact that they are already paying over3 per cent in copyright. We do not know what percentage they will be open to. Will it be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent? I do not know what the percentage is going to be for these neighbouring rights.
I looked at the people who are employed in the broadcast industry and the fact that there are many technologies including satellite where we can beam things up and down and have them broadcast at the local level. There are many labour saving devices such as being able to electronically file music that would normally be handled physically from CDs.
I looked at all the things that are happening electronically and if I were going to be investing in a broadcast facility I would be looking at the total picture. Where am I going to get this extra 1 per cent or 2 per cent that is going to be charged to me on my airplay for the performers? I would probably be driven to the conclusion in my decision making process, managing intelligently and well, that I would be better off to get some kind of electronic labour saving device that would probably remove some of the technical staff, some of the on air people.
In other words, this has the ability on one side of the coin to give a financial reward to performers but at what cost to the bottom line of the radio stations and particularly at what cost to the people who are working in those radio stations? I see this as being a well intentioned move, warm and fuzzy, but I see it as ultimately being very dangerous and very possibly a job killer.
I would invite all members to take a serious look at this and to follow the motions that have been put forward by the Reform Party and vote to repeal the neighbouring rights section of Bill C-32.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-32. Before I get into my presentation I think it is proper to mention once again that the procedure we are going through today is really an affront to people who like to do a good job of analyzing legislation, who like to go into detail and make detailed amendments. There are obviously several things wrong.
First, the bill is so hopelessly flawed that the Minister of Industry and the minister of neighbouring rights spend time in the papers decrying one another's position. There is not even unanimity in the cabinet on this bill. This bill is not the answer for the broadcasting industry in Canada.
Today we have had phone calls in Reform Party offices from both sides. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has problems with neighbouring rights and with some of the provisions of the bill as originally tabled. SOCAN, the society of Canadian artists, also has concerns in favour of neighbouring rights. Between the two we find they are both against it for exactly the opposite reasons. One group is against it because it says it gives to much power or too much economic deterrent to playing Canadian content. Canadian artists are saying that this does not give enough power and coinage in the pockets of artists.
What do we take from this? I think we take from this that the government has botched this bill from the beginning to the end. The government does not have support in the broadcasting industry. It does not have support among artists. Who then is the government doing it for? What is the purpose of this bill?
Every time the Canadian heritage minister muses in the press about what she would like to see the broadcasting industry look like, the alarm bells go off from one end of the country to the other, for different reasons. When she muses, as she did a couple of week ago, that perhaps we should double the amount of Canadian content on the radio, what happens then?
I can tell members what happens. The broadcasters in my area tell me that there is a limited amount of Canadian content. What we have is pretty good stuff and people enjoy it. But if broadcasters are asked to play twice as much, they are going to take the songs which are already heavily played and play them every other time.
If we hear Celine Dion-and I like Celine Dion, I have her tapes and her CDs-her songs would have to be played every second time because there is not enough Canadian content to double the amount without causing chaos in the industry.
When you live in an area like I do, or like most Canadians do, within broadcasting distance of the United States, the government can only jack around the listener so much until the listener says: "You know, I do not have to listen to this. I have choices. I can crank my dial".
Advertising dollars are now going down to Bellingham because people are saying: "I just cannot put up with this any more. I do not have any say about what kind of stuff is going on the radio. There is so much government regulation and bureaucracy that I am not sure of the quality of the product. The regulations, the hoop-jumping is so onerous, what is the point?" Therefore, advertisers are not putting their money into Canadian markets, they are putting into neighbouring markets, taking it south of the border and it is being beamed back into Canada.
Our advertising dollars are flowing south when they should, in my case, be staying in Chilliwack and Abbotsford and recirculated there. A lot of the advertisers and broadcasters are losing heart.
When the minister starts musing in the press about doubling the amount of Canadian content it sends a shiver up everybody's spine. They wonder what on earth she is talking about. There is not enough content to do that.
Another musing by the minister is when she talks about Canadian content. The rules are so screwy that with stars like Celine Dion and Bryan Adams, their music cannot be played because it is
not Canadian enough. They are Canadians. They qualify as Canadians and I do not think anybody is going to deny that. However, they are not Canadian enough under the rules.
What happens? Bryan Adams, whose producer may not be Canadian, does not get the Canadian content benefit because he has too many banjo players or whatever who are not Canadians. He cannot meet the rules. That person is cut off and does not qualify as a Canadian artist. Again, that is a shame because a lot of Canadians identify Bryan Adams as a Canadian rock star and think they should be able to listen to him and call him a Canadian artist, as I do.
Furthermore, when the minister went so far as to say that if it was not for the kinds of rules we are debating today, Celine Dion would be picking berries in some backwoods somewhere, never having achieved stardom, well, I do not know. Every time I see Celine Dion or listen to her music, I think this superstar blows the socks off most of the world with some of the best selling CDs, records and tapes of all time. To think that the minister said there was no way she could have made it if we had not had these content rules or this kind of regulation is farcical. It is just not true. No one can possibly believe that Celine Dion would be anything but a superstar regardless. That is my second point.
The first point concerned her musing about doubling the amount of Canadian content that must be played. That is just not possible. I do not know what she is doing. It scares the pants off a lot of broadcasters in Canada and it is something I wish she would refrain from doing because of the sight that would be.
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there is an inconsistency between what she is demanding and what the industry minister is demanding. The industry minister wants to strengthen the industry without getting into the malarkey that has been proposed in this bill and others. It is one thing to strengthen the industry but it is another to just throw rules in its way so they can neither do business or industry or broadcasting well.
The third thing I would like to mention is a concern of the broadcasters with regard to transferring music from CDs to digital computers. I have been through the Fraser Valley Broadcasting Group facilities a couple of times. It has had a complete technological revolution in the last three years. There has been a complete upheaval in the industry. It is an upheaval that involves the computer and digital recording. It also involves the opening up of a competitiveness between the players and the industry that are trying to play by the rules that this minister seems to dream up on her way to the coffee shop in the morning.
The industry needs stability. It needs to know that when it wants to transfer this stuff from CD to digital it can. It wants to know that it is not going to contravene some rules. It does not want to sort of get away with it when technically it is at fault. That is the problem with this bill. There are so many amendments, so many mistakes and it is so poorly drafted that everyone, from broadcasters to artists to consumers to legislators, are concerned enough that they are saying this bill should be stopped until it is cleaned up and the direction of it clearly given and that has not been done.
The minister should withdraw this bill until she has assured all the players that something proper is going to be done.
John Duncan Reform North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, this bill as it is currently constituted is of great concern to broadcasters. It is of great concern in respect to neighbouring rights.
There is a reduction in the neighbouring rights phase-in period. It removes the criteria that would require that the value of air play and volume of music use be factored into neighbouring future rights tariffs.
There is a rebalancing in light of the ephemeral exception. Particularly the radio end of it sees it as being too narrow a proposal. Many of us in this arena certainly use radio to a fair degree. I know it is probably the major media, other than the print media, in many of our experiences.
Many small radio stations in the country perform a very valuable service. Indeed, those radio stations need to transfer their medium on occasion. Many of them are using 30-year old technology. As a consequence, they are trapped into making these ephemeral changes. It is a major upgrade to get away from that. It is certainly not doing anyone any harm that they continue with this.
I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that is worthwhile for me to operate from in this area.
Certainly these private radio broadcasters and some of the private television broadcasters wish to counter any suggestion that the proposed amendment meets broadcasters requirements as they have articulated them. This material has been conveyed to the government and there is still great concern about the present wording of the clause.
It was not very long ago when I was spending some time in my vehicle and heard an interview on CBC radio. Many Canadians enjoy CBC radio. I am one of them. The value of CBC radio to Canadian broadcasters in the development of Canadian recording artists and so on became readily apparent in the anecdotal evidence that was being presented by artists, by people doing the recordings, by promoters and by others.
Sometimes we lose sight of what is the key issue in levelling the playing field or developing Canadian artists. One of the other examples that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters talk about has to do with episodes of local talent or variety shows. These are
taped in clusters for broadcast throughout the season to make them economically viable.
This bill, as it currently reads, requires that these tapes be destroyed 30 days after taping rather than as it is in competing countries like the U.S. and the U.K. where time starts running after the first broadcast. This seems like a very legitimate concern.
Then the association gives some other specific examples. Very often, rather than talking in broad terms if we can actually look to examples, we can see the flaws in what is being proposed in legislative and other initiatives much better.
This letter talks about CKCO's Kitchener Octoberfest parade. This is recorded by a station and tape delayed for time zone purposes by corporate sister companies in the west, part of the Baton Broadcasting in this case. The exception only applies to stations in formal networks of which there are very few in Canada.
John Duncan Reform North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you. Programs and program segments recorded without a public audience such as spots to promote Canadian musicians on CTV's "Canada AM" and so on state in this letter that because the exception tries to restrict itself to event programming and does so by requiring a public performance at the same time as a reproduction is made, this also constitutes lack of qualification for this kind of programming.
The broadcasters talk about some other absurdities, as they call them, in the bill. They are highlighted by a requirement that copies of these ephemeral reproductions can only be kept beyond 30 days if an official archive accepts their deposits on the basis of their exceptional documentary character.
Broadcasters really should be allowed to keep their own archival copies in house. I think this would be a great loss to Canadian society if we were to create this kind of concern. They would like to reuse them possibly in the future and they would be quite happy to pay a licence fee at that time. This would also of course create quite a burden for national archives should this kind of provision remain.
The bottom line of what the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is saying is that unless these flaws are corrected, programming would remain at risk because of the administrative burdens and the economic burdens through trying to clear this hurdle on rights clearance.
This would affect Canadian viewers who want to have a good look at programs about their local area. It would affect charities relying on broadcast based fund raising. It would have its impact on Canadian talent and there are other provisions that would be detrimental to French language music and programming. These would be the main people who would suffer the neighbouring rights provisions.
I find this whole episode this morning of most concern. I know this bill and these amendments are of great concern to many Canadians. Sometimes what goes on in this place ends up in the form of partisan gamesmanship or something quite non-productive. It is my hope and my wish that we can move forward, make the enlightened amendments that are required in order to make this a bill that Canadians will find progressive, productive and that will indeed assist Canadian broadcasting, Canadian artists, Canadian recorders and so on.
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
Is the House ready for the question?
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
The question is on Motion No. 5 in Group No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Copyright ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
All those in favour will please say yea.