Debates of March 26th, 2010

Canadian Heritage

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no matter what I say, I cannot get through to the parliamentary secretary. I said that it was a levy, not a tax. A tax goes to the government, whereas a levy goes to artists. It seems to me that this should be understood once and for all and that the parliamentary secretary should use the proper terminology.

Moreover, this levy does not apply to BlackBerries, smartphones and laptops. It does not apply to those devices, only to MP3s, like the IPod. I do not know what more I can say to make the parliamentary secretary understand that once and for all.

I have a question for him. If he does not want to give the money from that levy to artists, what does he think they will live on? What revenues will they have if they do not get money for their music?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member still asking about the issue of a tax. I would ask her, would the people at her home distinguish between paying a tax or a levy when they purchase an MP3? I am pretty sure that if they were asked to pay an additional $25 on an MP3, as dictated by government, most people would see that as a tax. I certainly would. It is a tax. Whether we call it a tax or a levy, it is coming out of the consumer's pocket. Her constituents and my constituents are all going to look at that and say it is a tax. I think I am pretty accurate in describing it as a tax.

Beyond that, there are important issues. The member asks how artists will survive if we do not put these taxes on these digital recording devices.

By the way, the member says she only wants it on MP3 players. I would argue that as we move forward, an MP3, an iPod, a smart phone, a laptop computer and all of these things are converging. That is where the technology is going. It is not just a matter of being relevant today but of being relevant tomorrow, and that member is out of step.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is just me and maybe I am not getting this right, but I would like to bring up something to illustrate my point, and maybe this illustrates the point of my hon. colleague.

He said that whether we call it a tax or a levy, it is coming out of the consumer's pocket.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Right.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

A week before the budget, the government slapped an out of pocket expense on travellers going through security and said, “We have to pay for security somehow with these big new machines, so we are putting a levy or a tax on these people”. When we said the government was taxing passengers, the government said, “No, no we are not taxing passengers. This is a fee, this is a levy”.

No, it is money out of pocket. So is it a tax on travellers going through security, yes or no?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. I am really thrilled to get the question because the member is failing to distinguish between a user fee at an airport and the tax proposed by the other member, which would be on iPods, smart phones, home computers, PCs and everything else, because all media are converging.

Often people in my riding and the member's riding and other ridings say that airport security is important, because they want to be absolutely certain that every person getting onto a plane has been screened effectively and that there is no threat to the plane. However, I do think the member would honestly agree with me that this additional cost, this additional security screening, these user fees that are being charged are probably best charged to people who are actually using the airport rather than being placed as a general tax on everyone in his riding.

Would the member like to see people living under the poverty line paying for improvements at airports? I do not think so. I think a user fee in this case is appropriate, but I would also say that an iPod tax is going in the wrong direction.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary speak in this debate, because we know the really checkered history of copyright reform from the Conservative government. The first bill the government crafted was so embarrassing the minister could not even bring himself to table it in the House. The second bill the government brought forward died on the order paper when the government called an early election, and we have not seen a bill since, though we keep hearing promises.

What is interesting to note is that even when the Conservatives did bring in a bill and finally tabled it in the House, they continued to be committed to a levy on blank CDs and tapes. Why did they do that? They did that because they know it works. They know it takes revenue and puts it into the pockets of the artists who created that music. It supplemented artists' income in a really appropriate way.

The infrastructure is already in place for that kind of system. I would say it makes sense for us to keep up with the technology and extend it to these kinds of audio recording devices. If the Conservatives are so opposed to this kind of levy, why did they include it in their own legislation?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member from Quebec who moved this motion specifically indicated, a number of these formats, loosely translated, are dying media to some extent. They are a media that are no longer in the mainstream. In fairness to the legislation, it did not make sense to go backwards. When some media are already fading in terms of popularity, what is the point in undoing something that is already there?

However, I do think we are forward-looking. Our position on this is forward-looking because we are looking at the convergence of media, the convergence of platforms and the convergence of how devices work. When I got my first BlackBerry, it did not do a lot of what this BlackBerry here does. That is the way technology is going.

Taxes like this, which the hon. members think are simple are not simple. They are incredibly complex. To put a tax on media and a tax on advances in digital devices and digital technology is going backwards, not forwards.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no copyright on my colleague's remarks, but they were so ludicrous that they are not in danger of being copied.

In my opinion, the member said very insulting things about his fellow citizens and the people of Quebec. He suggested that people could not distinguish between a royalty and a tax. What contempt for the people.

I think that he is displacing onto the general population his own misunderstanding of the issues and the facts. People can see the difference. They know that some of the money coming out of their pockets goes to the person selling the product. The money that goes to the company selling the iPod player also comes out of their pockets. They know that is not a tax. When they pay royalties, they know that these go to the artists and that they are different from a tax.

We have been given concrete examples like the EI premium increases. The Conservatives keep telling us that is not a tax. The fact remains that this is money coming out of people's pockets and going straight into the government's pocket.

Will the member admit that he is using ludicrous doublespeak, playing on words and willingly distorting the motion before the House today, because he knows that he is substantively wrong?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if one buys a dozen eggs and takes six out, there are six left. If one buys a dozen eggs and breaks six, there are six left. The member is saying that if one puts a $25 tax on an iPod, that is a tax; but if one puts a $25 levy on an iPod, that is not a tax any more.

It is still coming out of people's pockets. It is a tax. It would be a tax because it would be imposed by the government.

I know all the hon. members across the House do not agree with me on this, but they are clearly out of touch with Canadians. As I said, are they willing to talk about the forest or are they just going to talk about a couple of trees?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I encourage those members who are shouting me down to go out into the streets of their respective constituencies and shout at the top of their lungs that they believe in a $25 iPod tax. I do not think the majority of their constituents are going to agree with them.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You think people are stupid, but you are wrong. People are not stupid.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to believe that Canadians would think this tax is fair. I think all of its effects on the Canadian economy would be negative, but then again, what do they have to worry about? I am being shouted down by members who voted against Canada's economic action plan, which is actually driving a stronger economy. What do they care about economics?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the debate that just took place. I can just picture the hon. member for Peterborough driving along the road and getting stopped by an officer who gives him a speeding ticket, then turning around and saying, “How dare you tax me like that”. I mean really. “How dare you tax me. My taxes have gone up”. What a gem.

I do believe that the member is speaking of either six or half a dozen. I am not sure who took his eggs, for goodness sake. I still do not understand the analogy. I have an omelette and I have six eggs and somehow this resorts to a tax. However, it is a user fee and a user fee is not a tax. It goes to a great good, which is to secure our airports.

What happened to our artists? Where is the great good they are doing? Apparently they are not doing much good.

If this tax is so bad, if it is so decrepit, why has the government not eliminated the original tax on CDs? Has it not scrapped that tax yet? One would think the government would do that. My hon. colleague is right: I would not want to give the Conservatives that idea. It would be like giving them a free license to eliminate all money available to the artists who needed it. I retract that statement. God forbid the government actually follows through on that one. However, this is a complete and utter paradox.

The reason I am happy to see this on the floor today is that we are debating an issue that is so complex it has yet to have a full hearing in this House, and are doing so before receiving actual legislation dealing with copyright.

On one side of the House, members say that any money flowing to the government is really not such a good thing. I beg to differ, because the money returns in the form of medicare, the defence of our nation, the criminal justice system and all of those great things. Of course, we all know about that, so I will not go on about it.

However, what I do like about this particular motion is that whether or not one believes in paying the fee and whether or not one thinks it will benefit artists, the debate has to be heard.

There is a gentleman in my riding, Kevin Blackmore, from Glovertown in Newfoundland and Labrador. His group is called Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers. Members will have heard of them. They have a great name. They are one of the most famous groups of folk artists we have ever seen out Newfoundland and Labrador. Kevin lives in my riding and he brought up a good point. He said that the way music is proliferating through the digital media, the way it is zipped around the world and so many copies are made so quickly, it is getting to the point where it was when popular music first began, which is to say that for an artist the only way, the only way, of achieving any revenue is to have a concert. A recording will not garner it. In those days, nobody was making money from any recording, but nowadays these things are flying around the world instantaneously. Artists sweat tears and blood in doing their work. It gets sent around the world instantaneously. Somebody out there is making money and it is not the person who put the effort into that piece of art.

That is what we need to consider. That is what we need to look at. That is what we need to debate. Do not ridicule any revenue going to an artist as if it were being taken from someone for no reason at all. There is a benefit.

That is the problem with what we just heard. No one is talking about the benefit that an artist provides to the general public. That is the debate that needs to be held. Who has the incentive to entertain us, if we do not have the right business model for them to live within and spend a full career doing music?

This is not just about the rich artists who drive around in limos and who appear on red carpets, to use a previous analogy. The vast bulk of artists do not live that lifestyle.

Parliament must have a debate about how we deal with artists in this country. We need to set up a framework in which they must exist to make a living. That is key to what we need to do.

My hon. colleague was challenged on a point that would include not just iPods and blackberries but all sorts of devices. The parliamentary secretary did have one valid point, which was the convergence of technologies, because it comes to a point where internal memory devices proliferate across the board. However, he is missing the intent of what is happening here.

We are dealing with MP3s, which is a medium by which music is being played, and we need to consider that what we do in one needs to be good for the other. In other words, yes, six eggs are fine but six eggs are broken and now I must go back to the store and get half a dozen eggs. However, if we do that, we need to do it right. The only way as parliamentarians we will come to terms with providing artists with a decent living is to have and flesh out this debate here in the House. I therefore warn everybody in the House not to stifle this debate.

We are a part of a Canadian system that supports our artists. One of the greatest models to use about supporting artistry in this country is actually in the province of Quebec. I had the honour of living in Quebec for five years. In Quebec there is what they call a star system by which their artists, francophone mostly but some anglophone, benefit from this system by which their material but also them as artists are promoted in a context that is global.

The world is becoming much smaller. In the 1960s and 1970s the global village was this big and now it is this big.

I would caution the people in this House to look at this as an issue that is far-encompassing, one that is just beyond levies, taxes and fees, despite the fact that we get riled up into terminology as to what is what. As I said before, if this tax is so bad then obviously the other one on CDs is just as bad but nobody wants to get rid of that one. Why is that? It is because it is of great benefit to our artists and they have told us so each and every time.

However, CD sales are declining dramatically. HMV was one of the great stalwarts of business but not so much anymore. Some might blame it on the Walmarts of the world, the big box stores, but we need to lay some of that blame on the changing landscape of digital media.

We not only need to stay ahead of the curve here, we need to be in lockstep with what is going on. I have it said before and I will say it again, when it comes to legislation to clamp down on things, such as piracy and peer-to-peer sharing, we can spend a full year trying to decide how we will legislate this. We can put it in place in this House legislation that actually tries to eliminate piracy, digital locks and the like.

However, here is the problem. My son turns 16 today and I wish him a happy birthday. He is very adept at technology. We can put in legislation over a period of year but I will give my 16-year-old, like any other 16-year-old, 48 hours to get around it. We need to keep up.

I think this debate will contribute to how we can keep up, to allow artists to be artists and to make a living being artists, but at the same time allowing our 16-year-olds to actually enjoy the music, and not just the music of the famous stars but the ones who are trying to make a living doing this.

I commend my colleague for doing this and I commend the private member's bill simply because it proliferates the debate. We need this debate and discussion in the House before we arrive at the next copyright bill, which is coming, I anticipate in the spring, but I am sure we will find out about that very shortly.

Yesterday we spoke about Professor Michael Geist who is famous for his blog and famous because he has a great deal of insight into what is happening. Every time he speaks to a group, whether it was the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage yesterday or a smaller group here in the city of Ottawa or across the country, and even through his blog he still manages to cut through with a message that I think everyone is listening to because he understands that he is on the leading edge of the digital age.

He mentions his children as well, like I have mentioned mine today, for a very good reason. It is because we are not only monitoring what our kids watch, we need to monitor how they watch as well. What is happening is that the power of the computer mouse is now superceding the power of the remote control. The difference between the computer mouse and the remote control is empowerment. They want to watch and listen to what they want whenever they want to.

One of my favourite shows on television, a co-production with Canadians and the Irish, The Tudors, I legally download through iTunes. However, there are a lot of people who watch this Canadian production and they are not paying for it and they should be. My hon. colleague chuckles but it is actually a good show. He should check it out.

The thing is that it is quality programming, quality jobs and, when I say artists are involved, it is not just the actors we see on the screen. It is the people doing the lights, the make-up and the people behind the scenes creating scenery and making the wardrobe. They, too, are artists.

Getting back to music, we need to consider what we are doing. Michael Geist talks about copyright and says that it “...is an important part of a government new-media strategy”. He goes on to say:

As part of that policy, I think it's absolutely crucial to ensure that we maintain a copyright balance that exists offline, in the online world.

He wants to ensure that balance exists in copyright between access to material and compensation for the artists. What existed offline now exists online. That is what my hon. colleague is trying to point out here with the particular article to amend by saying that we are shifting into the digital age.

People may not like that specific wording and they may think that applies to other types of media but debate is wholesome and good because now we need to make this shift. If Michael Geist gets it, I guarantee everyone our kids get it too. We need to stay in lockstep with them in order to make this happen.

The offline world was the CD. It was what we had to do in the Copyright Act to ensure artists were compensated. The origin of this was back in the late 1990s. The private copying collective developed a methodology by which proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio air play and commercial sales samples. Radio college air play was ignored. There we have a good debate. Radio air play was ignored because it does not have the revenues to pay for this.

This private copyright machine was borne out of a wholesome debate that we had to compensate the artists, but at the same time allowing access that was fair for people who wanted to use it. However, we are way behind on this. I will illustrate a point. The countries of this world worked out WIPO legislation, world intellectual properties, and they signed a treaty. We have not ratified it. It was signed in 1996, for goodness sake. We are way behind. We have acknowledged it in committee. Our chair knows this is a valid point and raised the point as well. We both said that we needed to look at this and debate it because we were away behind.

President Obama even regarded us as being behind in copyright, which tells us that the leader of the free world, as he is so aptly called sometimes, is telling us to clean up our act in copyright. He did not talk about softwood lumber, missile defence shields or trade. He talked about copyright, and look out.

Right now we are working out a comprehensive free trade agreement with Europe and Europe is ahead of us on copyright. What we will find is that we will enter into an agreement that will leave us behind asking ourselves what the heck just happened. The Europeans will look at us and say that we had better clean up our act on copyright or there will be trouble.

That brings us to the reason that we need to foster this debate. We must not get caught up in a situation of levies, taxes, fees, speeding tickets and eggs. I am not quite sure of the analogy yet but as I stand here and speak I think I am starting to understand it and, brother, that is scary. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other, but six are broken. Maybe I do get it now. Maybe six eggs are broken, and the only way they will be fixed is if everyone in the House has an honest, clear and open debate about artists, their revenue and, of course, our kids who use that for entertainment. It is vital for them but it is vital for Canada.

We live next to a giant. I do not need to go into that. All members know what I am talking about and they know exactly who I am talking about.

The proliferation of media is incredible, not just in Canada but around the world. We just happen to live next door. How do we promote an artist in this country? We do it with things like compelling radio stations that 33% of what they play on the air must be Canadian. Did our artists benefit from that? I like to think so.

I guess the only artists in Canada who can say that they reached the pinnacle of music success and they did not benefit from the rule changes was probably The Guess Who. However, since then, they all have. Where would Céline Dion and Bryan Adams be without these rules? Where would these smaller groups of artists be without this levy that was fully debated in the House in the late 1990s?

I do not have the numbers but that is a basket of eggs that they gleefully accepted and will continue to accept because it is not a question of added bonus. It is a question of the existence of the Canadian system. So let us not stray away from going after each other. Let us focus on what we were doing.

I think the other issue is that many people are doing peer-to-peer sharing. What that means is that they are getting music on line, downloading it and not paying a single soul for it. Whether it is right or wrong, people are losing money and not making money on the effort they put into their artistry.

What are we going to do? We are going to have this debate and try to find that business model to allow these people to keep doing what they are doing or else the quality of music will go down and down because artists will find absolutely no incentive to get involved because they cannot make a living at it.

The second part is that many of our kids are downloading this music and do not even realize that they are breaking the law.

Therefore, we need a wholesome debate and one that is true to what we represent in the House, which is the best for Canada, our artists and the user, the kids and adults who actually listen to music. This is a national debate.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the intervention from the hon. member. He actually touched on a number of things on which I would just like to ask his opinion.

He talked about the Canadian content laws and Canadian radio. I would agree with him that that assisted Canadian artists in getting their names out there, getting their materials out there. He talked about the copying levy that was placed on CDs. I would agree with him.

I would also agree with the hon. member that the illegal redistribution and the pirated copies that are going on in this country is wrong. We have to put a stop to it. Creators deserve to be paid for what they are creating and that kind of illegal redistribution has to be stopped.

However, there is a bigger issue here. He talked about the convergence. I appreciate that the member understands that technologies are in fact converging, but the walls that we used to construct in Canada to create a distinct market are really becoming things of the past because we live in a global environment now. Any Canadian, his son, my nieces and nephews, all of them can access whatever they want, whenever they want. That is the power of the mouse. Borders do not exist, so we are going to have to take a look at it.

That is why I am saying this is a complex issue and it cannot be solved with one-off solutions. We need to look at it in a holistic fashion.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is right. The empowerment of the individual through the computer mouse is incredible. It is at a stage now where I cannot fully comprehend it.

At this stage in the game though, he and I are kind of looking at this from two different directions. I look at this motion as a vanguard, or that beginning spark, in this House to say, “What is it that we are going to do?” We are going to be left behind in legislation, just like we are left behind on WIPO, so the copyright legislation that we are talking about here has to look at all this.

One of the things that Michael Geist talked about in his intervention was that we need copyright legislation that is flexible, one that is illustrative, not exhaustive. That is a valid point. That is where Bill C-61 went wrong because it was overly prescriptive in nature. There are 12 ways in which one can break the law in certain areas, when in fact it should be illustrative, as to say, “This is what we need. This is the spirit of the law, which says that one is stealing something as opposed to using it fairly”.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor a question.

He is an artist, a musician. He knows how artists think. Can he explain to the members of the House what an artist lives on?

When a musician has a good idea and records music in a studio, he has to pay people. How can he pay these people when he has not yet been paid, and how can he record a CD, which has yet to bring in revenue? What does he live off during this time? How can he make money if he does not perform the following week? An artist takes six months to make a CD and then he promotes it for a few weeks. If he's lucky, he will go on tour, but not everyone is that lucky. How do artists earn a living? How do they make money?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually an excellent point. I have to correct her though. I am not really a musician. I was a TV weatherman and I was not a meteorologist, but I managed to convince people I was a meteorologist. I guess now I managed to convince someone I am a musician. Not bad.

The point of what she is saying is to think about the front end. We all get involved in music and for artists who are exceptional at what they do, they spend a lot of time doing it. My opinion is that what funds like this do is create a pool of cash or resources that allows artists, at the beginning of their careers, to tap into that with very little red tape. There has to be some red tape, obviously.

It is a valid point. It is a point I did not think of but that is certainly one thing that this does, and her motion actually alerts this House that we are behind. We need to move ahead for the entire life cycle of a particular artist, beginning, middle and end. If it is only left up to concerts to make money, she is right. How do we start and how do we maintain it at the beginning?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc supports the report from the committee. We know that the NDP supports it. In fact, we have even tabled private members' legislation paralleling the report. We know that the Conservatives are divided on this because the Conservative chair of the standing committee actually supported the report, whereas other Conservatives were opposed to it. We know that the Liberals at committee were divided. Some of them supported it and some did not.

It is still unclear to me today where the Liberal Party stands on this. I would like to ask the member, will the Liberal Party be supporting the concurrence motion when it comes to a vote in the House, and ensuring that artists are fairly paid for their work?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, listen to my speech and what I am talking about here. I want him to understand that the debate is now coinciding over a period of time. I think my vote is on record. All he has to do is look it up. I think we need to further the debate. The motion goes a long way in doing that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

It being 1:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act (broadcasting and telecommunications policies), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. When the House last dealt with this matter, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans had four and a half minutes remaining.

I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.