Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a few of the remarks and then conclude.
I was interested in the representation by the Bloc Quebecois member. She talked about the legal concept of property and the legitimate right of the artist to earn a living and that the artists have to pay rent.
I do not know how many more times I can say it. I and the Canadian Alliance recognize the property of creators. We want to see that those people are compensated. I do not know how much more clear I can make it.
We are opposed to when there is double compensation for no particularly good reason. She and the member from the Progressive Conservative Party talked about the fact that the broadcasters are going to make savings. Guess what, they are going to create efficiency. They are going to create efficiency by investing in capital, by investing in their operation. When they invest in that operation, they are going to be penalized because they are going to be paying a double royalty.
I ask the question, why were we even considering the exemptions in sections 30.8 and 30.9 if in fact the loophole was that the exemptions were not going to exist unless they were accessed by collectives? Of course collectives are exactly the way that artists manage to collect the money. Therefore, the exemptions do not exist at all.
We must protect those authors and creators she said. I agree with her completely.
The NDP seem to be pretty much on side, but raise the issue, as did my colleague from Elk Island, of the blank recording material. This is a very critical issue. It is coming up on April 22.
For people's information, on jimabbottmp.com under bricks and bouquets which is on the lead page of website, I have a 500 word presentation on the whole issue of recordable material and how in fact when we did the Copyright Act that this was another part of it that was inserted which does create a problem.
Coming back to the motion at hand, my proposition is very simple, that we pay only once for the use of the recorded material, not that we pay twice. It would be once when the recorded material is transferred in medium and then when it actually hits airplay.
With respect to my friend from the Liberal Party, he says that this is premature. Excuse me, it is not premature. On April 22, in less than a week, we will be having this argument in front of the copyright commission. Shortly after that, payments will be required under this flawed legislation. It will not be reviewed until September 22. By his own words he told us that there will not be any changes at least until the following year. So how is this premature?
What is premature is the early taking of unintended fees from the people who are in the business of broadcasting music. He says it is better to settle this issue within section 92. No, I disagree. If the legislation is bad, if the double payment is being required and the double payment is unfair, then this issue should be dealt with right now.
I have lost count but I think it is at least the 10th time I have said that I am in favour of protecting people's creations with respect to copyright. The Canadian Alliance is in favour of protecting that property and seeing that those people are properly compensated when their property is being used.
Make no mistake about it. What I am after with this motion is to change the legislation so that the unintended collection of royalties will not occur. It is just that simple.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable so that we can actually bring this to a proper debate on the floor of the House.