House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was artists.
Gary Goodyear ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)
Mr. Speaker, more good news. General Motors just announced that it will add a third shift at its Oshawa plant, hire more people at its CAMI plant, recall 600 employees, add an additional 70 jobs by August and is committed to repaying its loan by the end of June this year.
Canada's auto sector is thriving once again due to this government's continued commitment and will emerge greater after this recession, more competitive and more prosperous than ever before. We are getting it done.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can bluster, sputter and try to transfer the blame but the fact is that this tax will be downloaded onto ordinary Canadians.
Changing the rules on GST tax exemptions will reduce the value of RRSPs, increase the cost of insurance and increase the cost of mortgages. Who pays? It will be ordinary Canadians.
Why is the government taxing ordinary Canadians and forcing them to bear the brunt of the burden for the government's deficit?
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take a lecture from that hon. member and his colleagues in the Liberal Party talking about taxes. His colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, is the honorary chair of the raise the GST fan club. We have since learned, through expert analysis, that that would cost Canadians 162,000 jobs.
I am sure the Liberals will be discussing that at their thinkers' conference and I would be glad to hear what they think of it.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives may think, the market does not care about our science-based approach to genetic engineering.
In fact, on March 18, Bulgaria adopted the most restrictive law on GMO released in the European Union. This new law includes a ban on GM wheat. Six other European Union countries, including France and Germany, have imposed bans on growing GM corn.
Argentina protects its farmers by analyzing the potential adverse effects of Argentinian GM exports. Will the minister protect Canadian farmers by following Argentina's example?
Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, farmers are best positioned to make decisions on what is best for their business, which is why industry must continue to work with our producers to evaluate any new products.
Our government understands that in order to be competitive our farmers deserve timely access to the cutting edge inputs they need, but we also understand that our system must be based on sound science. What the NDP is proposing would put a choke on research and development in the agricultural sector and would diminish the competitiveness of our farmers.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Orders allow for a member to table a document referred to in question period. I therefore would request that you ask for unanimous consent for me to table the documents that I wanted to quote from.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is a document that was tabled yesterday by the government. Why would the government not want me to table it now?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
If it has already been tabled, then I am not sure of the need to re-table it. Regardless, there is no consent. It is not for the Speaker to ask why a consent has not been given. It is just to take note of the fact that there is no consent.
We will move on with tabling of documents.
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has recently taken steps to recover a $350,000 contingency or success fee paid by Shire Biochem Inc. to Wallding International Inc. in November 2001.
This fee was paid in breach of a contract provision prohibiting contingency fees under the contract between Public Works and Government Services Canada and Shire Biochem Inc. to provide seasonal flu and pandemic vaccine, when required, over a 10 year period. The contract provides that no contingency fee would be paid, directly or indirectly, by the contractor, Shire Biochem Inc. It further stipulates that if the contractor defaults on this term, the minister may recover the contingency fee from the contractor.
The contract states:
The Contractor certifies that it has not directly or indirectly paid or agreed to pay any covenants that it will not directly or indirectly pay a contingency fee for the solicitation, negotiation or obtaining of this contract to any person other than an employee acting in the normal course of the employee's duties.
All accounts and records pertaining to payments of fees or other compensation for the solicitation, obtaining or negotiation of the Contract shall be subject to the Accounts and Audit provision of the Contract.
If the Contractor certifies falsely under this section or is in default of the obligations contained therein, the Minister may either terminate this Contract for default or recover from the Contractor by way of reduction to the Contract Price or otherwise the full amount of the contingency fee.
In this section:
"contingency fee" means any payment or other compensation that is contingent upon or is calculated upon the basis of a degree of success in soliciting or obtaining a Government Contract or negotiating the whole or any part of its terms;
Wallding International Inc., a registered lobbying firm, was engaged by BioChem Vaccines Inc. to provide “--strategic advice in developing a strategy and action plan for BioChem Vaccines Inc. to be granted a long-term contract valued at approximately $100-$240 million with Public Works and Government Services Canada”.
According to lobbyist registration 7795767-11397-1, Wallding International was retained to lobby Health Canada, Industry Canada, the Privy Council Office, the Department of Public Works and Government Services and the Federal Office of Regional Development Quebec.
The registration indicated that the lobbyist's payment was not contingent on the success of the undertaking.
A routine compliance audit and review of related documents undertaken by Deloitte & Touche for Industry Canada uncovered evidence that suggested a contingency fee in the amount of $350,000 had been paid to Wallding International Inc. in November 2001.
Following a thorough investigation by Public Works and Government Services Canada's Oversight Branch, it was determined that the contingency fee should be recovered and that the file should be referred to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying to ensure that all regulations regarding disclosure of success fees were followed.
This government introduced the Federal Accountability Act in 2006, and as a result, the payment of success fees for contracts is now illegal and public office-holders are banned from lobbying after leaving office for a minimum of five years.
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the minister would not have followed the normal practice in this place, which is to submit the statement at least 24 hours in advance of making the statement in this place. We were given no notice whatsoever and it is just now that I have heard the minister's comments.
This is deeply disturbing on a number of levels. First, it shows a pattern of continued disrespect for Parliament and its institutions. It does not give us an adequate opportunity to respond, but particularly to do so on the issue of vaccines, one that obviously has gripped this nation and one with which we have been very concerned, particularly when it deals with those contracts. We had a lot of questions about them because they were sole-sourced. The government decided to put all of its eggs in one basket.
However, also consider the fact that just four months ago the Auditor General slammed the government for not having a plan when it came to emergency preparedness. Now when we are just beginning to get some semblance of action, which is hastily tossed together, we find out that the Conservatives are not discussing these matters with the people who are on the front lines in keeping our communities safe. As an example, when it comes to public health, the key individuals involved in public health, those who ensure our communities are safe or who respond to an emergency situation, were not consulted with the development of this plan. In fact, there is not even a clear chain of command.
In committee when one of our members asked a question about who was responsible, where the buck stopped, there was a long pause. The witnesses all looked at each other and eventually somebody said “Well, I guess it's me”. For a government that continually peddles in fear, in trying to balloon up issues to get people to be afraid, it is remarkable that it has no plan to actually deal with any of the situations it tries to get people to fear.
It is not just public health. When we talked to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the fire chiefs said that they were not included in the development of an emergency plan at all. They are absolutely irate that fire is not in that plan, that it has been set aside.
We talked with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture about a situation with fertilizer. Today in the House the member for Guelph asked a question about that. We have a situation where fertilizer is not being secured. The United States gave tax advantages to people to ensure they were able to put proper security measures in place, yet Canada refuses to do that. In fact, ministers have not been responded to letters requesting meetings with them. People feel left in the dark.
When it comes to emergency preparedness and emergency planning, the government is all talk and no action. Even a report from the Auditor General cannot get the Conservatives to get their act together, sit down, talk with the principal stakeholders and ensure the right thing is done.
Whether the government is proroguing Parliament, or cancelling the opinion of independent agencies, such as the Information Commissioner or the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner, or while it is not scuttling committees, in so many different instances the government shows a complete lack of respect for Parliament, its institutions and, frankly, democracy. Yet again the minister has done it here today. It is unacceptable. This is an unheard of practice to just dump it on the table like this. She should be following the practices of the House and show more respect for an issue of this kind of importance.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois, like the Liberal Party, is outraged that the government did not follow the usual practice. We were advised only this morning that there would be a ministerial statement today even though we received advance notice of the one to be made Monday on World War I, which gives us time to get ready.
In this case, even though there were confidential aspects, we could very well have received the text of the statement and kept it confidential, and the government knows that. Once we were informed of this ministerial statement, we asked for the text of the statement, in order to prepare an adequate response to the announcement. Clearly, we did not get the text before the statement, but we will not do like the government and improvise responses and gestures such as we saw yesterday, for example, with the introduction of 2,500 pages of completely useless redacted documents.
I must denounce the fact that it is now common practice for the Conservative government to take actions that show contempt for the work of the opposition. I give the example of the two prorogations in less than a year. There is also the refusal to abide by the order adopted on December 10, 2009. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that we will be more intelligent than the government and that we will not respond to the minister's statement before we have time to study it seriously. We will respond to it another day.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, as the NDP critic for public works, I am thankful the minister raised this issue in the House today. I, too, was taken aback at the lack of notice, but she has shared with us some very useful information to shine light on perhaps the untoward influence of lobbyists in policy-making, at least in the years of the early 2000s, prior to the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act, for which the NDP was proud to vote.
We did not see a printed copy of the statement, but the words that jumped out at me was when the minister mentioned the contingency fees, the success fees, paid out to Wallding International Inc. I note that the key principal of Wallding International Inc. is none other than former senior Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall, who had well-known and long-standing connections to big pharma in his former capacity as a minister in the Liberal government.
For a Liberal minister of the Crown to cease his duties as a cabinet minister and within a year, go out and influence peddle with big pharma for a sole-source contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars for a pre-set contingency fee is not only fundamentally wrong, it is illegal in my view. The only difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison, and influence peddling or selling one's influence, one's access to a company, is nothing short of influence peddling.
The minister has done us a great service by shining a light on this sorry bit of Canadian history. We have all known about the very cozy relationship between the Liberals and big pharma. We have all wondered about the drug patent laws, which were in fact the biggest corporate giveaway since the CPR in terms of giving big pharma almost unlimited drug patent laws. The has been essentially draining the coffers of health care budgets ever since, handing billions of dollars to the select, well connected, influential group of pharmaceutical companies that the Liberals used so well.
We all took note of senior Liberal staffers who were like a revolving door. One day they were working in the minister's office. The next day they were working for Pfizer. The next day they were working for a lobbying company. The next day they were back in the office of the Liberals. It was like a revolving door, which we noticed time and time again, ministerial staff going into big pharma and then back out again, or going into the lobbying industry and selling influence like this.
This is perhaps the most graphic illustration of the rot that crept into the Liberal regime in those years than we have seen since the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Dingwall, who was entitled to his entitlements, clearly thought one of his entitlements was to pillage the health care system by selling this privileged access to big pharma and lining his own pockets in the process. It is fundamentally wrong and I can assure members that our parliamentary committee will be seized of this issue, at the earliest opportunity, to conduct an indepth study of these kinds of shenanigans to ensure they can never happen again.
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-502, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (prohibition against oil tankers in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound).
Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Canada Shipping Act by prohibiting the transportation of oil in oil tankers along the north coast of British Columbia, specifically in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. It would also allow the government, on the recommendation of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to designate other areas of the sea in which the transportation of oil by oil tankers could be prohibited.
I feel the introduction of this bill is timely. On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef, causing one of the most devastating environmental disasters in North American history. The environmental impact of the Exxon Valdez spill was enormous, killing thousands of birds, sea mammals and others.
This week first nations groups, businesses and other community activists from all across British Columbia came together to denounce the proposed Enbridge pipeline, which would bring 225 oil tankers a year through Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound to move crude oil to markets abroad. This traffic could endanger countless marine species, first nations and coastal communities. As lawmakers, I believe we have a duty to protect B.C.'s coastlines for generations to come.
I strongly encourage the federal government to protect B.C.'s coast, our salmon fishery and our amazing coastal ecosystem and invest in a new renewable energy future. It can start to do this by voting for this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 1st report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on March 17, be concurred in.
I will discuss the issues related to the motion. Today, the Bloc Québécois is moving adoption of the report.
I will begin by reading the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.
There can be no doubt that people must be paid for their work. All workers have the right to earn wages, even my colleagues and me. Artists and craftspeople have the right to be paid for what they do and create. Consumers have the right to load the CDs they have legally purchased onto their iPods without feeling like they are breaking the law every time, without feeling like criminals.
The motion I presented to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was adopted, sought to update existing legislation. Since the 1990s, there has been an exception in the Copyright Act to do with private copying.
The exception allows consumers to copy material for their personal use. In return, they are asked to pay a tiny fee when purchasing the blank medium they use to make copies. Everyone here has paid this fee, and I am sure that I have too. It is 24¢ for audio cassettes, although very few people buy those nowadays. For CDs, the fee is 29¢.
The problem is that CD sales have declined dramatically, but consumption of music has not. There is a problem. Video cassettes are not included in the Copyright Act's private copying exception and never have been. Some might think that is too bad, but it took a long time to update this 1997 legislation.
Two years ago, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-61. The bill proposed adding video cassettes to the list. Unfortunately, the process took so long that nobody was even using them anymore, or at least, very few people were back then, and even fewer still use them now. The technology has become obsolete.
To avoid having the same thing happen with MP3 players and iPods, the Bloc Québécois is proposing, by means of the motion I had adopted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that we act swiftly to keep up with advances in technology and add iPods and MP3 players.
Unlike what the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages claims, this has nothing to do with BlackBerrys, laptops or iPhones. The minister is using scare tactics. We are talking about MP3 players, and the most well-known brand is the iPod.
This is not complicated. We are not trying to wage a new war. We do not want to change a principle. The principle is already there; it exists in the legislation. We are not trying to create a new one. We simply want to modernize the Copyright Act and add this temporary solution while we wait for a new Copyright Act. Since technology is developing quickly, we are worried that a new technology could already be invented and in use before we have a new Copyright Act and that it will be too late. As I mentioned earlier, we must act quickly.
I would like to give a bit of history. I remind members that in its 2003-04 decision on the private copying tariff, the Copyright Board of Canada approved the application by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, the CPCC, to have levies collected on flash memory cards embedded in iPods and other MP3 players, which the commission designated as digital audio recorders.
The Federal Court then ruled that the commission had erred in its decision and threw out the CPCC's case. Since then, this collective has tried to speed up the modernization of the act and to have it changed to include MP3 players, which is a good thing. The goal is essentially to ensure that artists are paid for their work.
I have an example to show that artists are not always paid for their work. On December 3, the Minister of Industry, a Conservative minister, gave a radio interview with CBC. During that interview, he bragged to host George Stroumboulopoulos that he had downloaded 10,000 songs to his iPod. He bragged about it.
The interviewer, Mr. Stroumboulopoulos, asked him twice whether he had obtained all those tracks legally and the minister started laughing. The interviewer repeated the question and asked the Minister of Industry again whether all the tracks had been obtained legally and he laughed again. He was unable to clearly state that he had acquired all the tracks legally and that all the music he had downloaded onto his iPod had been paid for in accordance with the Copyright Act.
Yesterday, in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, a respected university professor, Michael Geist, told us it is not so bad if artists, singers and musicians do not get paid for all their recordings because they can make up for those losses by putting on shows and earn money in other ways. He was reluctant to agree with a levy on MP3s.
I asked him whether he would agree to being hired as a university professor, but not paid. I told him that he is now known as a university professor and he could give talks and find other sources of income. He did not answer my question. In any event, it was not the best of questions; comparisons are always clumsy. Nonetheless, people have to get paid for their work and not just for things they do on the side.
When an artist makes a recording they have to rent a recording studio, and the recording studio does not give shows all across Quebec, Canada or the world. Professionals, sound engineers and the producer make the recording. I am talking about music, but there are also visual artists and authors whose work ends up on iPods and MP3s. The photographers, the printers and the cover designers all have to get paid for their work.
How can we expect all those people to earn an income any other way? It is unthinkable.
Last Friday we got some surprising support from the Edmonton Journal. I want to bring this editorial to the attention of the House. It ran last Friday, one week ago today. I will read the editorial in French. I tried to translate it, but I am not a professional translator. I have a lot of respect for translators. This is more of an interpretation, and I did the best I could. I chose certain sentences, so it is not a word-for-word translation and I hope that you will not judge my translation skills. Please do not think that I am bragging.
The title is Creative content must be paid for, which I translated as On doit payer pour le contenu artistique . I hope that that is correct and that I started off on the right foot.
Before I begin reading, I should say that the same day I managed to have a motion adopted authorizing a levy for artists on the purchase of iPods, the member for Timmins—James Bay, my NDP colleague, introduced a bill containing exactly the same proposal. Obviously, the Edmonton Journal is talking more about the actions of a federalist member than a Bloc member. It is surprising enough that it would support someone from the NDP; we would never have expected it to go so far as to support a motion from the Bloc. But the objective is what counts, and the Edmonton Journal supports it and ran a whole article about it. This is what it had to say. Once again, this is not a translation but, rather, an interpretation.
It's not surprising, says the Edmonton Journal, that the people of the world have warmly embraced the idea of getting creative content for free. Most of us understandably prefer not paying for something whenever possible, even when securing the product gratis technically breaks a rarely enforced statute.
And the editorial in the Edmonton Journal continues.
Downloading music, it says, is a good example because everyone does it. It's true that some of us always dutifully buy our music online, from sources such as iTunes—I would say, rather, sites like Archambault in Quebec—which do distribute royalties, however imperfect the system.
And I would add that this is true for all systems everywhere.
But millions either don't do this, or share with others what they have purchased, making crooks of 11-year-olds, at least in the eyes of the law.
That is how the Edmonton Journal puts it.
Recognizing this reality some years ago, the Canadian government, along with others around the world, began levying a small fee on all blank recording media used to copy music, such as CDs.
Canada's private copying levy—that is its name—was introduced by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a non-profit, independent organization founded in 1997 to distribute monies collected from retailers and consumers to musicians, record companies, publishing firms and other copyright holders.
The sky hasn't exactly fallen in over that legislation, although some retailers, unrepentant pirates and libertarian types have continued a bitter fight railing against the fees for years.
On the other hand, the tough-talking record companies and their agents, who beat the garbage can demanding severe penalties for perceived offenders, must also be taken with a mine shaft of salt.
I repeat, that is the opinion of the Edmonton Journal.
What has changed over the past 13 years is digital technology. These days, most of the file-sharing taking place—and expanding exponentially—involves the next generation of devices. Royalties would be added to the purchase price of only MP3 or IPod players, not computers, tablets or phones. The new legislation would help balance the interests of both consumers and creators.
In this editorial published in the Edmonton Journal, from which I am quoting rather freely, as I said, our colleague from the NDP, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, is quoted as saying that artists have a right to get paid and consumers have a right to access their works. That is important. Digital locks and suing fans are not going to prevent people from copying music from one format to another. By updating the legislation—I am still quoting the hon. member—, we will ensure that artists are getting paid for their work, and that consumers are not criminalized for downloading their legally-obtained music from one format to another. The comment by the member for Timmins ends here, but the Edmonton Journal editorial continues.
While all this seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise, to hear the Conservative government tell it, it is the Boston Tea Party circa 2010. Personally, I would talk about a revolution. The Minister of Industry, misrepresenting its contents, denounced the bill as “total nonsense”.
One might have thought that the Minister of Canadian Heritage would defend creators, but we know that he defends many causes which are not that of creators. This minister also distorted what was suggested in the proposed legislation, talking as if it included a levy on BlackBerrys, iPhones and laptops, railing oddly that consumers deserve lower, not higher taxes.
According to the Edmonton Journal, it is true that the royalty distribution system in Canada is far from perfect, but record companies have not exactly always been a paragon of fair-dealing when it comes to honestly compensating artists.
The system overlooks lesser known artists. The system is not perfect but it is about time that we, as a society, face the fact that those who create cultural content should be given fair compensation for their work, something we all desire.
The Edmonton Journal added that it usually does not support NDP bills, but that the bill introduced by the member for Timmins—James Bay is fair and balanced and worthy of everyone's support.
As I stated earlier, the bill introduced by the member for Timmins—James Bay is identical, word for word, to the motion we are presently discussing and that I was able to have the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage adopt.
The Edmonton Journal concludes that the Conservatives are clearly playing pandering politics, and that hopefully the opposition parties and independently-minded Conservatives will sign on to a compromise that upholds basic Canadian values of straight dealing.
That is the end of my quotes from the Edmonton Journal,, and the end of my translating. You will have realized that it was a very loose translation. The main ideas are there but I am obviously not a translator.
The Edmonton Journal is not the only one to agree. In general, the public feels that artists should be paid for their work.
A nation-wide poll conducted in June 2006 by Environics Research Group confirmed that 60% of Canadians believe that creators should be compensated when unauthorized recordings are made of their music. The same poll indicated that of those Canadians who make private copies of recorded music, 80% feel that a royalty of 30¢ for CD-Rs and CD-RWs would be fair and reasonable. it currently stands at 29¢.
In a similar vein, 79% of Canadians who make private copies stated that a $40 levy on iPods—which is a lot—or other 30GB digital audio recorder would be fair and reasonable. We should remember that a 30GB iPod costs several hundred dollars and that a $40 levy on an iPod has never been considered. What had been suggested previously was an amount between $2 and $25.
A 30GB digital audio recorder can hold up to 7,500 songs or the equivalent of 500 CDs. That is much more than can be listened to in one week unless that is all you are doing.
On the weekend, in Quebec City, when the Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert riding association presented this same motion to the Bloc Québécois general council, it was our executive's youth representative, Frédéric Burque, who presented it. He is not even 30.
Who supported this important motion presented by the riding association executive? The Forum jeunesse, a strong, energetic, realistic youth wing that is in touch with the concerns of young Quebeckers. It was the Bloc Québécois Forum jeunesse who supported the Bloc motion.
Who voted in favour of the motion recommending royalty levies on iPods? Everyone. It was unanimous. The 75 riding associations, the citizenship committee, the national bureau, the leader of the Bloc Québécois—everyone in the Bloc Québécois, from young to old, agrees with this motion.
In the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, who voted in favour of this motion? How did we manage to adopt this motion in this committee? I moved the motion and my Bloc Québécois colleague from Drummond, who, of course, has the interests of artists at heart, supported it. The member from the NDP was also in favour of such a bill since he introduced a similar one the very same day.
Two of the three Liberal members also voted in favour of the motion; the third abstained. Who was the sixth voter? A Conservative, the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage himself. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington even wrote a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and a letter to the Minister of Industry to ask them for changes that would modernize the legislation. The words he used are exactly the same ones used in this motion.
In closing, I hope this motion will be adopted. Unfortunately, it will not become law, but if adopted, it will send a clear message to the Conservative government to change the Copyright Act and make this correction as soon as possible.
This message also means that the new Copyright Act the government is cooking up will have to include an exception for private copying, with levies not only on obsolete audio cassettes, but also on CD-Rs, CD-RWs and digital audio equipment such as MP3 players.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Peterborough Ontario
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I have only been around this place for a little over four years but I really do believe the old saying that if one stays around here long enough, one will hear just about everything.
Today we are hearing about a tax on technology. I cannot believe we are actually talking about instituting a special tax on technology, the same kind of technology that would drive Canadian innovation and productivity.
Let us work with the number the member just gave. This tax would apply to PVRs, smart phones, iPods and every form of digital media with a memory. That is what the motion says. She mentioned perhaps a $25 tax on a 30 gig iPod. Home computers often come with memories exceeding one terabyte now. A terabyte would be about 33 times as much memory as a 30 gig iPod. One could assume that the tax would therefore be fairly attributed to be 33 times $25.
I am just wondering if the member would also support a tax on a home computer in excess of $800, because that is in fact what she is advocating.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by that kind of questions that reek of bad faith.
The principle of indemnifying artists for copies made for personal use is already in the legislation. It applies to CDs and audio cassettes, the four-track cassettes that nobody uses anymore.
We are asking to update the legislation to include MP3s.
I said in my speech that the measure would apply only to MP3 digital audio recorders. We are seeing the usual scare tactics from people who say that the measure will apply to smartphones such as the BlackBerry, but that is false.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has brought forward this concurrence motion today. I am also pleased that she spoke favourably about the work of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and his private member's bill, which is very similar to the report that came out of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The New Democrats strongly support this report and strongly supported it at the standing committee.
I wonder if the member could comment on the way the Conservatives have characterized this as yet another tax. It is far different from a tax. A levy is far different from the kind of tax increase the Conservatives have put forward, for instance, in Ontario and British Colombia, with the harmonized sales tax.
This levy would be completely dedicated to artists in Canada. The money that would be collected on the levy would go to them as compensation for their work. It would not go into general revenues of the government.
I wonder if she might comment a little more on that.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his extremely relevant question. True, those who are against applying the levy to MP3s call it a tax. There is a principle or an ideology behind the word tax. A tax is money collected for the government that goes into the consolidated revenue fund before it is redistributed through the financial system. A levy is totally different.
A levy is an amount that is paid, for example 29¢ on the purchase of a CD, and then given to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which redistributes it to copyright holders through a very sophisticated mechanism.
The copyright holders are the artists who contributed to creating the music. This mechanism is not perfect; there are always some who slip through the cracks. Nevertheless, in general, artists and arts workers are extremely satisfied with this system. Tens of thousands of dollars have been distributed in this way to artists and creators, thereby increasing their incomes.
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, I find the parliamentary secretary's reaction is quite surprising. I hope he will agree with the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, one of his Conservative colleagues.
We must take a stand with the artists. They deserve an income. I held consultations in Vaudreuil—Soulanges during prorogation. I met artists and people who promote Quebec culture in the Montérégie region. These people agree with the Bloc Québécois and the position that my colleague so expertly defended.
I would like to ask a question of my colleague. What was the amount of the royalties received by artists through the current law?
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her very relevant question. First of all, I have to say that artists are not rich by any stretch of the imagination, contrary to popular belief. We see them on TV, all sparkly and glamorous, but in real life, it is not the same.
In Canada and Quebec, the average artist's income is between $20,000 and $25,000 per year. Some of them make a lot more. There are some Céline Dions in the world, but the fact remains that most artists really do not make a lot of money.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective has collected $180 million in royalties since 1998. These millions of dollars are redistributed as fairly as possible to the artists of Canada and Quebec. That money is the difference between living below or above the poverty line, allows artists to get a few thousand dollars more in a year or to receive a cheque from time to time to make ends meet. These royalties are worth a lot to the artists and taking them away would be devastating.
We have to understand that, since people use four-track cassettes less and less, royalties are decreasing dramatically and constantly, while artists need more and more help because their CDs are not selling well—because there are too many copies.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, I was at committee yesterday when we spoke to Michael Geist. In her speech the member gave the impression that she did not really agree with what he was saying. However, there is one aspect of it with which I think she would agree, which is to say that he did go on to say that further debate is needed on this. I believe in that as well and here is why.
The copyright issue has never faced a full debate in the House even though several bills have been introduced. It was debated back in the early part of the last decade but since bills C-60 and C-61 there really has not been a full vetting of what is going on. I think that is what Mr. Geist was also saying and I am sure she would agree.
Would the member agree that furthering the debate certainly would be beneficial for us as parliamentarians?
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very pertinent question. Indeed, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard the well-known Michael Geist, who gave an extremely astute presentation on the comprehensive digital strategy. While he said some very pertinent things on some points, on others I would say that he is out of touch with artists.
I agree completely with Mr. Geist when he says that we need a comprehensive digital strategy. In the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, only the Conservative members did not get that. We could see it again this morning with the Canada media fund. This is a new patch for digital because the government has no strategy and no vision for the transition to digital or for digitization. There is only tinkering around the edges while Michael Geist thinks, like me, that we need a comprehensive vision.
Mr. Geist is completely right about copyright, as well. Bill C-61 was already obsolete the day it was introduced. It talked about videocassettes when everybody was already using MP3 files. Bill C-61 created all kind of problems and was already obsolete.
I also agree with Michael Geist when he says that we need new copyright legislation. I totally agree with him on that, but I do not agree with his reluctance to give the royalties on iPods to artists on the pretence that they have other sources of income like live shows. I consider that everybody has a right to be paid for what he or she does when he or she does it.
Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Peterborough Ontario
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, first let me emphasize that our government is committed to fostering creativity, innovation and economic growth and giving Canadian creators and consumers the tools they need to keep Canada competitive internationally. We see this through all the efforts that have been made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
He is certainly a young minister, but I do not think there is a person in the House who knows more about digital technology, emerging technology, than the Minister of Canadian Heritage. At the same time, he is transitioning with that knowledge and he is also leveraging support, whether through the Canada media fund or the Canada music fund. There is a five-year commitment to the Canada music fund. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is really leading the cultural sector in this country, and it is exciting to see.
Today, we have been asked to consider a motion proposed by the opposition members in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which would tax all iPods, all MP3 players, all cellphones, all BlackBerrys and any other device that can hold media.
As my parliamentary colleagues likely already know, Canada has had a levy equalling less than a dollar on blank recording media such as CDs since 1997. In the intervening years, newer technologies came along with built-in memory to store music and other electronic files.
To properly consider the motion presented before us today, we must be aware of the scope of the issues involved and the related technical details. This is indeed a very complex issue, and there are many views and perspectives that must be considered.
I want to take a few moments to describe the Canadian private copying regime. To begin with, I will remind members of the continuing impact of new technology on the copyright landscape and how it has evolved and continues to evolve in recent times. When music was just available on vinyl records or in live performances, only people with specialized skills and equipment could make copies of it. Even as tape machines became available, the task of making copies was cumbersome and difficult. In addition, there was a noticeable decline in the quality of the first and then subsequent duplications.
I am sure many of us can remember waiting beside the radio with our finger over the “record” button waiting for our favourite top-10 hit. I know in Peterborough it was 980 CHEX that I was listening to as a kid, and I remember sitting there with my tape recorder, trying to time that song just right. It did not work out very often.
As technology improved, customers found it easier to make copies. It became relatively easy for a consumer, for example, to buy a vinyl record to listen to at home and make a tape of it to listen to in the car. It was just as easy to make an additional copy for a friend or two. This practice became more widespread, and that was a problem. The holders of music copyright were not compensated for the copies of their work. For consumers it was also a problem, because making any copy at all was illegal.
At the same time, enforcing the rules was very difficult. It is one thing to pursue an individual who makes thousands of copies of a single work and then distributes them without the permission of the owner. It is quite another when it is millions of people copying thousands of works.
Canada's private copying regime, created in 1997, was a response to this difficult issue. Since copies were distributed on recordable media, such as CDs, the regime imposed a levy upon them. The moneys collected in this way were then distributed to copyright holders of the works being copied. To do this, the Copyright Act had to be amended to allow consumers to make copies for their private use on some audio recording media. It was also necessary to give Canada's Copyright Board the power to set the levy for each medium. The Copyright Act, which assigns these powers, requires the board to consider three issues when determining these levies: the consumer's ability to pay, the impact of tariffs on black and grey markets, and the public interest.
The system is not intended to compensate owners for each copy of their works made. In fact, it could not be, since it would be impossible to track the necessary data. Nor is the system intended to levy charges in a way that was precisely related to the consumer's actual use of works. The levy is applied irrespective of the actual use of the blank media. The Copyright Board sets the levy taking into account the criteria I mentioned earlier and considering general usage patterns.
The hon. member who spoke just before me talked about the levy on CDs, CDRWs, DVDs and DVDRWs.
Quite often these units of storage are not used for recording music. They are used for recording things like photos. Sometimes students will use them for recording lectures at school so they can review them later. To place a levy or a tax on these media just because they could be used for music is obviously something that a lot of my constituents have often had trouble with. They do not understand why there would be just a blanket charge being placed upon them, on the assumption that is what the storage device would be used for.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective is responsible for receiving these levies and distributing them to the rights holders. Based in Toronto, this non-profit agency represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies. In the 13 years since its inception, the Canadian Private Copying Collective has stated that it has distributed over $180 million to copyright holders in the music sector.
The notion that Canadians should pay an additional tax on recordable media to compensate copyright holders appears to have become generally accepted, although as I noted, there are ongoing debates.
I should note that consumers purchasing CDs were not necessarily aware of it. In fact often, when I talk to folks in my constituency to ask their opinion on the motion that has been brought forward by the hon. member, I am surprised how many people are not aware that they have been paying this tax for some time. And when they find out about it, they are not necessarily happy.
One could say Canadians have accepted their new rights to make copies for private use, but I do not think that would be accurate either. A more precise way to put it would be to say that an already widespread practice has become even more so.
Technology once again has radically changed the game that these rules, established in 1997, were meant to govern. Herein lies the problem. New challenges have emerged. For example, an MP3 player about the size of a credit card can store more music than was once held in an entire boxful of CDs. I own hundreds of CDs. I have purchased them all, but despite all the racks and shelves I have to hold these CDs, I can now store all of them on a device that I could fit in my pocket. In fact it would be smaller than my car keys.
Today consumers can easily download and listen to music from online sources or from previously owned copies without ever needing to purchase a recordable medium such as a CD. However there are many means by which to download media, on websites such as iTunes, where consumers pay for the music and files they download.
The opposition is suggesting that the Copyright Board simply place an extra tax on all devices that are able to store these media, which could result in a tax as high as $80 per device, and that is just on an iPod. This is where we get into the difficult argument on this.
I asked this of the hon. member a few moments ago. She was using a tax, although she used the word levy, of $25 on a 30-gigabyte iPod, but for home computers the hard drive capacity is now measured in terabytes, which is significantly more. How therefore would we determine the tax or levy on a device with that much memory? This is clearly a problem.
Not surprisingly, the tribunals and courts that adjudicate copyright law in Canada were asked to rule on the matter of taxing new media devices. I am not going to go into all the details of the various decisions, however the salient point is that the final decision by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 10, 2008, excluded memory in digital audio recorders, such as MP3 players, from the Canadian private copying regime. That was the decision of an independent judiciary.
The motion adopted by the opposition members on the Standing Committee on Heritage proposes to amend the Copyright Act to bring such devices under the regime. The motion provides us with the opportunity to further consider the debate over the private copying regime. What are the challenges? What are the possible solutions? And what do Canadians want? That is something that all members in this House would do well to consider.
This debate may help shed light on the preferences of Canadians and the impact of recent court decisions in the scope of the regime. It is also important that we consider whether we need to approach this debate from a micro or a macro perspective. Should we begin by considering the forest, or do we want to focus on the trees?
Should we begin, as this motion proposes, by considering one possible solution to a particular problem? Following this line of thought, we would ask ourselves whether or not we should amend the law such that MP3 players are not included in the private copying regime.
Thus, let me suggest we take a more holistic perspective and think about the broader issues. As I said a moment ago, we should be considering the effect on all Canadians, the effect on business, the effect on students, the effect on the everyday constituents we all represent. That is the holistic approach we should be taking.
Before the adoption of this motion, our government had already begun thinking about the larger issues related to copyright law in Canada. In the summer of 2009, we launched a consultation process, and we committed to strengthening laws governing intellectual property and copyright in the 2010 Speech from the Throne.
To ensure the consultation process would be as open as possible, we embraced new technology and created copyright consultation websites and held live events in town halls across the country. As the Speaker would well know, one of these copyright consultations was held in Peterborough, where stakeholders from right across the spectrum took part. We also held them in major centres right across the country, such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. In all sectors of the country consultations were heard, and a very diverse group of Canadians came forward to talk about these complex issues.
A simple review of the results of the consultation process shows us that Canadians are clearly aware and care deeply about the issue of copyright.
The website received more than 30,000 unique visits. More than 2,200 visitors registered with the site and left more than 2,500 comments. We also received more than 8,000 written submissions on the copyright consultation.
Moreover, as I said, we hosted round-table events in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Peterborough, Gatineau, Montreal, the city of Quebec and Halifax. In each of these venues and in online discussions, we asked Canadians to respond to questions covering five types of issues.
We asked them about how copyright law affects their individual lives. How do Canada's copyright laws affect them and how should Parliament modify the existing laws?
We then asked them to think in terms of the larger community, based on Canadian values and interests. How should the copyright system be made to withstand the test of time? As technology changes, how do we put in place a law that is always timely, that is always relevant?
We asked respondents to think in terms of creative interests. What sorts of changes to copyright rules do they believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada? That is so important to our future.
We asked them to think in terms of economic interests. What sort of copyright changes would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
Finally, we asked them to think in terms of Canada's remaining competitive in the global market. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the digital economy?
What did we learn?
First, we learned there are many views on any one issue pertaining to copyright, often differing even within stakeholder groups, be they creators, distributors or consumers.
Others focused on related issues. On the one hand, having been used to making copies of music that they have legally acquired, they wish to be free to continue to do so with minimal restrictions. Others are concerned with format shifting. Having purchased music in one format, they wonder why they should pay an additional tax or fee on a new device to which they will transfer these files.
Members will remember my story about all the CDs I have purchased. At some point, when I have a bit more time on my hands, I would not mind taking all those CDs and putting them onto a digital device. The question is whether, when I make that format shift, I should have to pay for all of those recordings again, because I have already purchased them once. That is something a lot of folks come to me about. They feel that if they have bought a CD they should not have to pay again. But certainly this motion would see all folks charged a levy or a tax, as I see it, on the devices onto which they would actually transfer those media.
In short, we are faced with the challenge of addressing a number of different interests and views, while ensuring Canada continues to be well positioned in today's global economy.
Our government recognizes that to succeed in today's global economy, Canada must keep step as the world races forward. The relentless pace of technology means every day there is something newer, faster and better. We are committed to strengthening laws governing intellectual property and copyright to encourage new ideas and protect the rights of Canadians whose research, development and artistic creativity continue to contribute to Canada's prosperity. We seek not just to protect the rights but also to enhance incentives to do research, to develop ideas and to create art.
I have met with rights holders right across this country. I do not know how many members in this chamber are aware of the contributions that creative Canadian companies are making globally.
We are the number two producer of video games in the entire world, right here in Canada, and producers are asking for our protection in copyright. We are one of the leaders in producing films and dramatic art.
Certainly I know that all members of the House are well aware of the incredible cultural contributions that we make. Our artists and musicians are leading the world in so many new and exciting ways and their work is truly inspiring.
Effective copyright law will help create a market that will protect incentives for those Canadians who develop new ideas that will enrich our lives and increase the prosperity of our nation. The last thing, though, that Canadians need is another tax.