Debates of April 13th, 2010

Canadian Heritage

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Timmins—James Bay on the terrific work he has done on this whole issue now for a number of years.

The bottom line for me comes down to the question of compensating or litigating. We see what is happening in the United States. We cannot live through a process where we have lawyers chasing kids and senior citizens. This is going to be an absolute minefield if we allow the lawyers to solve these problems. The fact is the Conservatives are misrepresenting when they are talking about a $70 tax and we are talking about a $2 levy. Let us get--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has 30 seconds to respond.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention to the House that even as close as one hour away there are homesteads which do not have hard lines for telephones. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are dependent on a cell phone as life support for their health. These same senior citizens who rely on purchasing a cell phone for their safety are going to be automatically assumed to be taking creators' work and defying copyrights. That is not being fair to all Canadians.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. It is a very complex, topical debate that goes far beyond the context and scope of the motion.

We are in the midst of a transition to a digital economy, which affects culture in a big way. It is a topic we are faced with every day, not only in the House of Commons, but also in the business world, in broadcasting, and in film studios, to name a few. We could talk about it even more, if this government would be more open about the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, which concerns all of us. We know our government colleagues very well, and they like to have full control over access to information. That said, let us get back to the matter at hand.

The Liberal Party has always believed and still strongly believes that our artists, especially our creators, must be paid and remunerated for their work. Our party has always been recognized as a reliable partner for Quebec and Canadian artists. This is the case because we recognize the value and wealth of the contributions made by our artists and cultural industries.

Our party fought back when the Conservatives decided to eliminate various cultural programs in 2008 for ideological reasons. I can assure the House that we will continue to protect what our artists do to enhance our culture with courage, innovation and creativity.

This is why I agree in principle with my colleague's motion. Clearly, our creators should be compensated for the valuable work they do. Who would agree that they should not be compensated for what they create, except maybe our Conservative colleagues?

The purpose of the motion before us is not to create a new law or a new tax. Its purpose is to update the current law, because there is already a system of levies on recording media such as blank CDs to account for copies. That already exists. Why should the new technology that is replacing CDs not be subject to the same law?

The argument we have heard from the Conservatives today makes no sense. Unlike them, we know that this motion has nothing to do with a new tax; it has to do with a levy on electronic devices. That levy would be redistributed directly to artists.

My colleague should know that when a tax is collected, the money goes into the government's consolidated revenue fund and can then be put toward government priorities. In this case, we are talking about a levy that goes directly to creators and artists. The government does not get one cent of the money.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his parliamentary secretary cannot tell the difference between a tax and a levy, and they are hoping that the public will not be able to either.

I have said it before and I will say it again: our artists should be compensated for their work. They amply deserve to be compensated. It is logical, fair and essential to maintaining a strong, vital cultural milieu. The cultural industry generates $40 billion in revenue and creates more than 600,000 jobs in Canada. Culture makes a significant contribution not only to our economy but to our everyday lives. Can we even imagine a day without culture?

We must support our artists by ensuring that our legislative framework reflects this new reality. My colleague's motion talks about redefining that framework. Unfortunately, though, this motion has serious problems in terms of process and content.

With respect to content, it is clear that the motion is not specific enough, particularly when it comes to the digital devices targeted by the new levy. What exactly are we talking about? We know that it would apply to iPods because people use them primarily to listen to music, but would it also apply to the BlackBerry and iPhone?

That is a good question. Will it also apply to home computers? In short, will it apply to all devices that have a memory and can record and play back music? We think it is absolutely critical that we differentiate between these devices based on their primary use. The primary use of a device that will be subject to the levy is a new element we have to consider in this debate.

This matter deserves to be taken seriously, but a motion that does not take this distinction into account will not help. However, I want to say that the work that went into this motion is not for nothing. It reminds us that we still have a lot to do to deal with current problems that need solutions. That is what I wanted to say about the content of the motion.

With respect to the process my colleague has chosen, with all due respect, I must say that it was somewhat ill-advised. For this discussion to be productive, it must take place within the larger context of the ongoing debate on copyright. Many have said that the government is behind when it comes to updating that kind of legislation. My NDP colleague mentioned that too.

The Conservatives believe that it is more important to advance their ideological agenda than to help our artists. We all know that. The Copyright Act is in dire need of amendment, but we have to deal with it comprehensively. We cannot do it by playing with motions that will not end up changing anything. Nor can we dissect every little part of the Copyright Act and turn all of those parts into motions to win political points.

Unfortunately, this motion is incomplete. It comes at a bad time and in the worst way. In fact, it could be counterproductive and hinder our current objectives. The Conservatives have taken advantage of this in order to spread falsehoods about the end goal. The Bloc Québécois motion—and we heard this again today—has allowed the Conservatives to completely shift the debate to make it an issue of taxes. We all know that is not the case.

The Conservatives are obsessed with the word tax. They are unable to distinguish between a tax and a levy. The motion as presented has given the government the opportunity to talk about taxes. This will hurt our artists in future debates. The current debate will not change anything, but this motion may hurt future debates.

We must quickly come up with something concrete. I invite my colleague and her party and all the other hon. members to work with us in order to come up with a system. It could be the one proposed in the motion, but with some clarifications. We want a system that will enable our artists to be paid for their work. It is a matter of common sense, justice and equality.

Instead of debating a motion that, even if it were accepted, would not change anything and that simply allows the government to make speeches day after day about taxes, why not work together to amend the legislation when the time comes? That way, our artists will get what they deserve and will be paid for their creations.

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

Madam Speaker, I really do not understand the member for Honoré-Mercier, the Liberal member who just spoke. He is twisting all of the arguments and is finding only the faults in this motion, when his own colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, already said he was in favour of it on March 26 in this House. Furthermore, in committee, two of the three Liberal members present voted in favour of this motion. The third abstained. So I do not understand that what was good last week is no longer good this week.

I get the impression that the member for Honoré-Mercier is only finding the faults in the motion because he has already decided to vote against it, since he agrees with the arguments of the Conservatives, that this is a tax. The member feels vulnerable when he hears claims that his party is in favour of taxes. That is the only reason.

I do not know if he is trying to save his party or what, but his attitude and behaviour are opposed to the interests of artists. I am extremely disappointed in his position. Artists will judge the Liberal Party accordingly.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I have to say that my colleague is out to lunch.

I said earlier that the motion has the merit of opening a debate. That is its merit. It has the merit that we can debate it. Now, the problem with her motion is that the member simply wants to score political points. There is absolutely nothing to this motion—the government does not have to follow it. But it gives her the chance to attack the government and the current system by talking about taxes.

As a point of background, we are in complete disagreement with the Conservatives when it comes to taxes. We consider it a levy. I said that three times. I am sorry that my colleague did not listen to my speech, but I said three times that there is a huge difference between a tax and a levy. A tax is directed to the consolidated revenue fund and the government can use it for its priorities. But a levy, such as that on CDs or that which would be on an iPod, would be distributed to the artists. I understand this very well.

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

The member can explain himself to the artists.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were making some progress with the Liberals until the second part of the member's speech. He started off rather strong and rather positive, but I hope we can get this issue resolved before the vote. As the member of the Bloc mentioned, two Liberals on the committee were solidly behind the motion. Certainly the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, my good friend, has spoken seemingly in favour of it. He does not seem to have the same confusion as the existing speakers, so perhaps they can resolve it among themselves.

However, it is very clear that the government cannot get this job done. I remember Bill C-61, when the Conservatives announced it and then pulled it. Therefore, we cannot rely on them to get a successful conclusion through this process. How long have they have been working at this? To leave the job to them, we will never see a solution.

Clearly the motion gives some direction, has some good vision to it and has a solution to it. We should stick together as opposition. We support Liberal initiatives that we do not always—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier has 40 seconds left.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on at least one thing, that is, we cannot trust the Conservative government when it comes to culture.

As I said over and over in my speech, our artists must be paid for what they create. We all agree on that, except the Conservative government. However, a motion that says more or less nothing about more or less everything does not serve this debate. On the contrary, it can be counterproductive.

I agree that we must work together. There is no need to worry, for my colleague and I get along just fine, like the rest of my colleagues here. So we will work together—the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals—to change the legislation and ensure that our artists are paid.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to my colleague's motion. As we all know, the world around us is evolving at a fast pace and we must ensure that the legislative frameworks that we create are well-suited for this change, especially in the area of technology.

In this digital economy era, a sector that has to work even harder is the cultural sector to keep up with the change. We must ensure that the change that it is encountering is looked at as opportunities versus constraints. It is for this reason that it is incredibly important to make an informed decision.

In accordance with our historical reputation of being a strong partner in the cultural industry, I know that many of my caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party wish to ensure that our cultural heritage policy and our cultural heritage in Canada is protected, while at the same time promoting creativity and innovation and also ensuring that the rights of all artists are protected in our country.

For instance, members may recall that we supported the industry when the Conservatives decided to make a $45 million ideological cut, both to the loss of Trade Routes and the PromArt programs. The industry was yearning for help. I know that many individuals in this House and, in particular, caucus colleagues, ensured that they were with them to support them during that difficult time.

We must ensure that we have a strong and dynamic cultural industry. This is why we believe that artists must be supported and also remunerated for their work. They are talented, hard-working and dedicated and we must ensure they have the opportunity, the resources and the tools they need to succeed.

The motion presented by my colleague deals with the issue of the latest technologies not being included in a law that already applies to compact discs, or CDs. We talk about BlackBerrys and iPods. Clearly, the law must be modernized to take into account the new digital environment in which we live and the technologies that are being used by many Canadians across this country, in particular, our young people.

Also, to call such a measure and use the word “tax” is simply wrong. It is a levy, which means that the money raised will go directly to the rights of owners and that the government would not make any particular money out of all of the levies that are collected. I would hope that this difference and this particular concept between a tax and a levy would be knowledgeable to all members to ensure that all individuals could make an informed decision.

However, it is still inconceivable to think that artists should not be able to get their fair share for what they produce through their talent, their hard work and their efforts. One way or another, we must ensure that artists are supported. They are our industry's bread and butter, which is why some of the initiatives put forward by the government previously have been flawed.

In this spirit, I believe that the rationale behind my colleague's motion is actually sound, as my previous colleague just stated in his speech.

We must ensure that our artists receive their fair share not only for what they produce but also because they deserve it and because such a measure would help to ensure that the cultural industry keeps the creativity and the innovation and also gets rewarded for it. However, most important, it would help to ensure that artists and the cultural industry are viable and sustainable for many years to come. We must realize that the cultural sector alone represents over $40 billion and over 600,000 jobs in Canada. We must ensure that we protect and promote our cultural industries in Canada.

There are many flaws with the motion that we have identified in talking to many individuals, to stakeholders and to organizations. For example, the motion does not talk about devices that would be levied. What about the BlackBerrys and iPods that are being used? It is our belief that we must study this further to ensure it makes sense. We must ensure that the categories for this particular motion would be identified.

It is also important to have further studies on this before making a decision. We all must be informed and educated before making a decision that could impact the cultural industry and many Canadians and, most important, many consumers of these products.

However, in talking to some of the advocates, the stakeholders and organizations, they identified another criticism. They also highlighted the need for Canada as a country and for all of us as parliamentarians to revisit the copyright law and legislation.

In order for us to reframe this legislation, we must look at it in its entirety, not just a fraction of it. The committee report only deals with a portion of the copyright legislation, not its entirety.

The government must take immediate action to bring forward changes that are desired by the industry. However, these changes must be brought forward in consultation, collaboration and co-operation with all of the stakeholders at the table. It must not be done in isolation. In addition, the timing that has been identified perhaps is not the best.

On the international scene, many debates and discussions have been held throughout the world in regard to the issue of copyright. Any changes that we make here in Canada must be uniform. We must ensure that we have a copyright law that protects consumers, that protects the artists, that protects the stakeholders and the organizations.

Many organizations and stakeholders have been advocating for a change to the copyright legislation to ensure that it is fair, to ensure that all of the necessary players and stakeholders have an opportunity not only to benefit, but to be protected. At the same time there needs to be an opportunity to promote our cultural industries. We must ensure that we bring forward this change to the legislation as soon as possible, with proper consultation and collaboration.

We must also ensure that the decisions that come forward are done in consultation with all members of the House. In talking to many of the stakeholders, I have heard first-hand that they felt shut out of the previous copyright legislation.

This particular motion does not reflect all the changes that need to be made. It does not exactly identify the type of products and technologies that would be used. In particular, it does not exactly identify the impact it would have on young people in this country who I would think would be the prime consumers of such products.

As a member of the House of Commons heritage committee, I know there are many dedicated and hard-working individuals who want to ensure that we bring forward legislation which is reflective of the needs and the priorities of the organizations and the individuals and most important, Canadians, whom we are trying to help.

We must modernize our copyright legislation to ensure that it is coherent with the needs of the creator and also the consumer. We must work together to ensure that this legislative framework is beneficial for everybody. By putting partisanship and politics aside, all of us as parliamentarians will be able to work together in a co-operative and collaborative fashion to ensure that consumers are protected, to ensure that those individuals, such as artists with their talent, with their creativity, with their dedication, are also rewarded. We must ensure that legislation that is brought forward provides an opportunity for everyone to succeed. We must continue to invest in our cultural industries.

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

Madam Speaker, CD sales are plummeting, although people are still listening to music, even more than ever before. At 22¢ for audio cassettes and 29¢ for CDs, as set out in the private copying legislation, in 22 months there will be no more royalties to give to artists. This is very urgent.

Can the member who just spoke tell me how she believes that artists will be able to earn a living from their art from now on? We need to go beyond principles, beyond Liberal Party rhetoric, and take action to do something concrete and ensure that artists have an income.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important to reward artists for their hard work, for their dedication, their time and their efforts. Many members on this side of the House, in particular my caucus colleagues, have been advocating for that. Unfortunately, the motion would not do anything really to assist artists in that respect.

We must look at copyright legislation as a whole and bring in changes that would benefit the artists who are working so diligently and effectively. We must ensure those changes benefit them and allow for creativity and innovation, and at the same time consider the consumer. It is unfortunate that this motion does not really address these particular issues.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is kind of disappointing to hear that in the committee the Conservative chair was supporting the motion, the two Liberal members on the committee were supporting the motion and now we get into the House and we have a different cast of players here.

I do not know what the Conservatives have done to their chair but obviously the chair is not asking any questions or making any presentations tonight. I do not know where the Liberal members are but their representatives here are not reflecting in my opinion what my understanding was that they agreed to in the committee.

Having said that, I listened to the member for Timmins—James Bay make an excellent presentation tonight. Some of the observations he made about the government were particularly interesting because we have seen them played out over the last few months, particularly on the issue of whether it is a levy or a tax. The Conservatives are running around trying to exaggerate and essentially misrepresent this as a tax. They say that it is a $70 tax on iPods when the member for Timmins--James Bay pointed out that we are talking about $2. It is not a tax. It is a levy to help artists. That is what it is all about.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona spoke about us supporting this motion at committee.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, along with my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who is the official critic for the official opposition on the Canadian Heritage file, we were most interested in having the motion brought forward to the Chamber where we could have an opportunity to debate, discuss and, hopefully, highlight for the government the need for copyright legislation to ensure that we modernize it and that it is reflective of the needs of the organizations, the stakeholders, the advocates and, most important, the artists.

We are in no way, shape or form advocating our responsibility away from the artists. We support the artists and they must get the resources, the skills and tools they need to succeed. Unfortunately, the debate both by the parliamentarians bringing forward the motion and some of the other members does nothing to reward the artists for their creativity, their innovation, their hard work and their efforts.

We on this side of the House are committed to working with the artists. As a long-standing member of the Canadian heritage committee, I and my colleague, the official critic, have worked diligently and earnestly with all the stakeholders, organizations, advocates and artists to ensure we have legislation that is modernized and reflects the needs of artists and also provides protection for the consumers.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak this evening to the motion by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, which the committee has already adopted, as has been mentioned several times. As my NDP colleague said, half the Liberals on the committee voted in favour of the motion, as did the chair, who is a Conservative. So this is not a motion that some members on this side of the House just came up with. It comes directly from the committee and has the committee's support on the whole.

A well-known American author, Buckminster Fuller, who wrote Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth—a book that was famous in its day—and designed the geodesic dome that served as the U.S. pavilion at Expo 67 in Montreal, once said that if you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top.

What our friend Buckminster meant—and it applies perfectly to our debate today—is that in an emergency, we do not always have time to fuss over details and we sometimes have to take the most expedient course of action instead of waiting for the best course of action. Perfect is quite often the enemy of good.

Our singers, our musicians, our authors, our songwriters and composers and all those who support them are in a state of emergency. Day after day, they are watching their copyright revenue melt away like snow in the sun. Paradoxically, consumption of their work is growing fast, and because of this gap, many of them have an annual income that puts them at the poverty level. This is unfair to them. Not every artist is a Luc Plamondon, a Céline Dion or a member of Cirque du Soleil who has made it big. Many artists are just starting out and still have far to go before they reach their goals.

It is simply a stalling tactic to claim in this House, as many members have, that before taking action we must wait for a comprehensive digital strategy and the modernization of the Copyright Act in keeping with this new strategy and what is being done internationally. This reasoning seeks to justify inaction, which is unwarranted at present and harms the artists concerned as well as their creations. In this sector, the creation is the goose that lays the golden egg for the entire system. If there is no creation, there will be no product for distribution. If there is no product for distribution, there will be no income to share.

Therefore we must ensure, and quickly, that our artists receive their share of the pie. They are entitled to it and we owe it to them. We hope they will continue to create, as their success assures us of ours. If the income of our creators nosedives when the income of all the others in the chain increases, it is simply because new technologies, such as MP3s and iPods, are not covered by the current Copyright Act.

The motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we are asking the House to adopt, will solve this problem, albeit temporarily. The motion reads as follows:

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.

This is, in fact, a declaration of principle.

My colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, was very careful to specify the following in her remarks a few weeks ago:

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.

That is what my colleague said.

We consider this a temporary solution to the problem because we are well aware that we will soon need a much more comprehensive framework to deal with the issues. Canadian regulations do not apply to broadcasting in new media. The CRTC has stated that many of the issues surrounding new media do not fall within its current mandate. That is why we will have to review its mandate, a process that will be neither quick nor easy.

There are many issues related to new media, including taxation, copyright, privacy, spectrum management and the convergence of the broadcasting and telecommunications industries, which fall within the purview of several federal departments, thus complicating matters. The CRTC asked the Government of Canada to coordinate its approach to these intersecting issues by developing a national digital strategy, but that is not going to happen overnight.

This is all the more pressing because we are talking about a major economic sector in which Canada's 2,300 digital media companies employ 18,000 workers and generate some $3.5 billion in revenue per year. That is not peanuts.

I should also point out that people are adopting these new technologies at an ever-increasing rate.

For example, a group of Harvard students set up the social networking site Facebook in 2004. Just five years later—not 50—in September 2009, the site had 300 million active users worldwide, including 12 million in Canada. That is an example of how fast things are changing.

In the same vein, Google Inc. is only 12 years old. The company was founded in 1998 by two students at Stanford University, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The initial search engine quickly became the most powerful in the world and it currently processes roughly 70% of all online requests for information. Google is now the most popular Internet search engine and has generated astronomical revenues for its creators who have sold advertising space on the search pages.

Would the creators of Google have agreed to invest so much talent, time, energy and money if there had been no chance of being paid one day for their investment and creativity? I doubt it and, in my opinion, my colleagues do not think so either.

Our music creators are currently in a situation where their creative efforts might not be compensated because everyone can use their property without paying for it. We have to help them. It is urgent.

At the scene of an accident, we do not engage the multi-trauma victim in a discussion on medical philosophy or the future of health. We first ensure that the injured person is breathing, that the bleeding has stopped and that the person will survive long enough to receive the right treatment in order to recover.

That is exactly what the motion from my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is trying to do.

I have read the questions and comments from government members that opposition members have been hearing in recent weeks, at least all the ones that were about this motion. A number of these questions and comments seemed to be trying to pass opposition members off as amateurs and government members, as usual, as professionals.

I would like to remind members opposite about something that is often forgotten: amateurs built Noah's ark, and professionals built the Titanic.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all feel that something needs to be done, and soon.

We also feel that creators need to be remunerated and that we need to support them. We are not against the principle of extending royalties to certain electronic devices. We need to decide which ones and how they will be defined.

I would like to bring my colleague back to earth. He is talking about urgency and he seems to be saying that the motion will change everything. That is not true. This motion aims at nothing more than scoring political points when the real debate lies elsewhere. That debate needs to happen in order for change to occur.

Can my colleague tell me what exactly would change for artists if we passed this motion here in the House tomorrow afternoon? Is this motion not just a petty political game?

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, what this does is to send a clear message to the minister that Parliament has decided to support people who create music and called on the government to do the same.

Does the government have to respond to that? It is not responding at all, but eventually, the government will have to answer for its actions and for the fact that it does not follow through on the motions passed in the House by everyone in Parliament. That is how it will play out. This will not change any specific things for them overnight, but it does send a very clear message.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 7:55 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(c) the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 14, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:55 p.m.)