House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was artists.

Topics

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, imagine the wonderful smell of buttered toast, smothered in honey, wafting through our offices. Obviously, that makes us think that the machine I described is a marvel. However, it is relatively expensive to purchase. A few hundred dollars, but we can pay a price per piece or buy a subscription to get toast at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way. That obviously makes this new machine more attractive, since any honest, hard-working individual will jump at the chance to improve his life for a low price.

That being said, not everyone agrees with this new approach to breakfast and some people refuse to buy the appliance and stick to their traditional methods. However, this innovation becomes quite successful and is sold across the country. This revolutionary device shakes up our morning habits and causes major changes that affect the stakeholders in the traditional bread industry. We have to tell it like it is: our wheat farmers are not compensated for the process to duplicate the real wheat in our fields. Initially, the appliance is not seen as a threat because no one could imagine anything replacing real bread, but the astounding success of the new machine results in lost markets for the wheat farmers. After a high-profile court case, the farmers' legitimate calls for a fair price for their wheat are dismissed. That same wheat remains absolutely necessary in the duplication process created by the innovative company that is now an industrial giant.

That is not the worst of it. The government takes the side of the company in question and, in a supreme act of bad faith, describes the legitimate royalties the farmers are seeking for their wheat as a consumer tax. Our wheat farmers do not have the means to stand up to this powerful and dishonest propaganda and are forced to continue fighting rearguard actions with limited means, hoping to find allies in the public or among other groups in order to reverse the trend.

There you have a story to illustrate the major technological changes we are experiencing—

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to speak.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Madam Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for the interruption. However, there have been further discussions among the parties and now I am much more confident that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, take place on Tuesday, October 25.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the motion?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I will forgive the hon. member for the interruption since that is also a very important issue.

I would now like to continue. As I was saying, this story helps us to understand the major technological changes that the world is experiencing and what our creators stand to lose if Bill C-11 is passed as is.

Creators must not have their works expropriated, as the wheat farmers in my riding have had the fruits of their labour expropriated; this must be avoided at all costs. And we are not even talking about the impact such action would have on the entire creation-related production system, which involves a very large number of people. Today, I would like to set the record straight and put things into perspective.

First, it is important to understand that, contrary to popular belief, artists are not rolling in money. As some other hon. members have mentioned, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is less than $13,000 a year, which is below the poverty line.

According to a 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada, the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007 at all levels of government. That is three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. If an investment yields three times its cost, I do not see what is preventing the government from supporting this industry in every way possible. How can anyone claim that artists are dependent on government handouts when their creativity contributes to the country's economic and cultural prosperity?

I would be remiss if I did not mention the many economic benefits generated by creators. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that the arts and culture industries in Canada contribute $85 billion a year to our economy. I would like to remind the members of this House that this amount represents over 7% of Canada's gross national income. That is over a million jobs in the Canadian economy. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can survive only in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

It is worth taking a moment to talk about what the government calls the iPod tax. Several times now, the government has described extending the private copying exception to include digital audio recorders, which the NDP supports, as an iPod tax. The tax could cost Canadian consumers up to $75 per device, the Conservatives said. Does it not seem a little ridiculous to imagine artists and authors taxing consumers, who are their bread and butter? Quite the opposite, the Conservatives' copyright bill, Bill C-11, will ultimately increase the current levies on cassettes, CDs and DVDs. To use the language that the Conservatives themselves are using, this would be like a tax on those products.

Another important point deserves our attention for a moment. Bill C-11 creates an artificial distinction between copying for private use and reproducing for private use. It does not propose adding any new digital storage media to the existing private copying system, but it protects the system in its current state. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the scope of the levies would be determined by the Canadian Copyright Board, a government agency under the supervision of the industry minister. This kind of control would make authors take a back seat, and it would be somewhat worrisome to see the minister have that kind of arbitrary power.

The Conservatives ignored the opinion of the experts who appeared in committee and the conclusions of their own consultations on copyright held in 2009. It is absurd. As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. In addition to introducing a new control mechanism wielded by a single minister, this government did not take expert opinions on the matter into account.

In conclusion, I invite my colleagues to remain vigilant. The NDP believes that Canada's copyright laws can strike a balance between the rights of creators to obtain fair compensation for their work and the rights of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

We need to pay attention to creators. Wanting to tax consumers shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality facing authors.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, we have a clear understanding on this side of the House, but for the opposition, much of the problems with the bill stems from the fact that they do not see that we are taxing Canadians enough. I think we have a clear picture of that.

However, would the member comment on the unique part of the bill which talks about “notice and notice” for our Internet service providers so we can better protect copyright owners from those who seek to poach their work and does he support that provision in the bill?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking this question.

This really is one of the regrettable aspects of this debate and others as well. Unfortunately, we argue too easily over details. All the New Democratic Party is asking for, in this debate as well as others, is to be able to discuss these questions openly and thoroughly.

Unfortunately, despite this government's openness to receiving proposals, all of ours were categorically rejected. I hope that the hon. member will listen to me and that we can speak openly.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the striking way he is approaching this issue.

I would like to carry on with his analogy. In terms of his machine, it seems to me that it is a question of modernization, as opposed to creation. Usually, when a machine is created, engineers are called in to help, but when it comes time to modify it, I would think it important to consult with those who actually use the machine.

In the case of Bill C-11, are there associations of creators in Quebec or Canada that seem to support the government?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for praising my creative talents. I truly enjoyed using them.

So far there has been no representation from the creators in support of this bill. It is a shame that in this situation, and in others, it is the major conglomerates, the major power holders that have the upper hand. It is the property holders—Sony, Apple and other corporations—that have ample means to defend themselves. Obviously we have to provide a regulatory framework to protect their interests, but creators are also calling for this same right. We wonder why the government is denying them that right.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, could the member elaborate on the economic contributions he sees from the indirect jobs? I know many of our communities have those indirect jobs in the arts and culture industry.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

Yesterday, I had the honour of receiving farmers from across the country. They told me all about the spinoffs of farming activities. The same thing applies to the arts. It is quite extraordinary to see the economic contribution made by creators through the many partnerships they bring to the table and the massive multiplier effect that results. I am talking about two, three and four times the level of government investment. Sometimes it is almost 10 times the investment when we talk about general economic activity.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate. What we are dealing with in the House at this moment is an amendment to Bill C-11 suggesting that what we should be doing is essentially striking the bill. The amendment says that the House would decline to give a second reading. I believe part of the reason for the amendment is that this piece of legislation fails to deal with the concerns raised in connection with previous versions of the bill; this is not the first time that the House has seen some attempt to amend the Copyright Act.

With regard to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, I know listeners are interested in why we are talking about complex issues. The legislative summary discusses copyright law in Canada. It says:

Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Copyright attaches to an original work that is fixed in some material form. In other words, copyright protects the expression of an idea or intellectual creation; it does not protect the idea itself.

It also says:

The Act affords the author of a work the right to authorize or prohibit certain uses of his or her work and to receive compensation for its use. The purpose of the Act, like that of other pieces of intellectual property legislation, is to protect copyright owners while promoting creativity and the orderly exchange of ideas.

New Democrats, the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, have very ably raised the point that we absolutely need an amendment to the copyright laws we currently have in Canada. Everyone agrees that we need an amendment, but as other members have pointed out, the devil is in the details.

New Democrats have consistently proposed that copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of the creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content. We have proposed amendments to the bill that would create a fair royalty system for artists, because as it stands right now, the proposed legislation will actually wipe away millions of dollars in revenue for artists. This has a profound effect not only on the artists' ability to continue to create and contribute, but also on our communities and our economic well-being. I will touch on that in a minute.

The proposed Copyright Modernization Act essentially gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. While the bill contains a few concessions for consumers, they are unfortunately undermined by the government's refusal to compromise on the single most controversial copyright issue in this country, digital lock provisions.

In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in remote, isolated communities would have to burn their school notes after 30 days; this is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright laws. I was formerly the aboriginal affairs critic, and we understand that the only way for many aboriginal communities to have access to a more balanced education system is through the Internet. Students simply need a reasonable parity of time to access material that is so essential toward their becoming important and productive members of the future labour force.

New Democrats have proposed removing the sections of the copyright modernization bill that would make criminals out of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal noncommercial use. We support the lessening of penalties for those who are responsible for breaking copyright laws; this would prevent the excessive use of lawsuits against ordinary citizens, which has been problematic in the United States. There were extensive copyright consultations in 2009, and the bill that has been reintroduced from the former bill simply has disregarded that extensive consultation.

I want to turn for a moment to the economics around copyright. This is the reason it is so essential for us get this piece of legislation right. Many of our communities have a vibrant community of writers, singer-songwriters, theatrical producers, cinematographers, and producers of Internet media, and many communities derive a substantial benefit from these creative activities.

A couple of years ago, the Conference Board of Canada did an extensive report on the contribution that arts and culture make to our communities. I want to quote from the report, because it illustrates why it is important that we get it right and why New Democrats have been so very adamant that what the Conservatives have proposed simply does not fix some of the problems before us.

Chapter 1 is entitled “Valuing Arts and Culture as Cornerstones of the Creative Economy”.

The chapter summary says in part:

In a dynamic environment of global competition, demographic change, and migration, Canada’s culture sector plays a critical role in attracting people, businesses, and investment; stimulating creativity and innovation; and distinguishing Canada as an exciting place where people can celebrate their heritage and achieve personal and professional fulfillment.

The first chapter of the report goes on to discuss:

...the value to Canada of the culture sector as an economic engine, a magnet for talent, and a catalyst for prosperity.

We often hear in this House about how important it is for what we do here to contribute toward overall economic growth. What the Conference Board of Canada is laying out is a framework describing how the culture sector, beyond just the very fact of culture, is part of what is creating that innovation and that prosperity.

The report goes on to state:

Traditionally, the culture sector has been recognized for its multi-faceted role in contributing to individual and community development, social cohesion, and quality of life; however, in recent decades there has been growing understanding and examination of the substantial economic contributions of arts and culture industries and of their central role in the creative economy.

The report goes on on to talk about what the creative economy is, and since I only have 10 minutes, I cannot get into the details of that. However, I know, for example, from talking with some of major software developers that it has been very important for the software development industry to be able to tap into that creative community to enhance their product. That is another sideline that the creative community often plays.

Now we can talk about dollars and cents. This is an overview of the economic contribution. I am only going to read a small part of it. It says:

The economic footprint of the culture sector is much larger, when accounting for combined direct, indirect, and induced effects. The Conference Board calculates this full contribution as valued at $84.6 billion, about 7.4 per cent of total real GDP, in 2007.

It goes on to say:

Considering the effect of culture industries on other sectors of the economy, including direct, indirect, and induced effects combined, culture and related industries employed over 1.1 million people in 2007.

However, there is a discrepancy in this, and the Conference Board of Canada goes on to point this out. Many people feel that sometimes people in these creative industries make big bucks. Contrary to that, it specifically cites artists. The report states:

In the case of artists, for example, despite the fact that 41 per cent of artists have a university degree, a certificate, or a diploma--almost double the rate of 22 per cent for the overall labour force--average earnings remain relatively low at $23,500 per year.

It is important to raise that point because of the complexity of the copyright legislation. One of the goals of copyright is to ensure that artists are adequately compensated for the work they do. If we fail to do that, we already have some components of the culture sector who are seriously underpaid for what they do, so we want to ensure they are compensated.

Many of us could get up in this House and talk about the importance of culture at the local level in our ridings. My riding is a great example. A number of years ago, the town of Chemainus was struggling because its major employer, the sawmill, shut down. The town of Chemainus reinvented itself and became known as the town of murals. Chemainus is now a vibrant artistic community that not only has these magnificent murals on the walls but has also generated a whole series of other activities. In addition, the town of Chemainus has a very good theatre company, and people come from all over the island to attend its productions.

In the town of Duncan, every July we have a folk festival that brings in singers and songwriters. This provides a venue for, particularly, new and emerging Canadian artists to perform and engage in other creative activities with other artists from across the country, and sometimes from afar as well.

The city of Nanaimo has a very vibrant theatre culture, and of course Gabriola is awash with world-renowned songwriters and performers. Bob Bossin is only one of many. A recent arts tour on Thanksgiving weekend highlighted the diversity of the arts culture on Gabriola.

I will conclude by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation that we need to get right in order to protect not only consumers but also producers of arts and culture in our country. I would strongly urge all members to take this bill back to some basics and get it right.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague's very eloquent exploration of the bill is greatly appreciated.

This country has enjoyed a massive burst of popularity due to the work that groups like Arcade Fire are expressing. Their ability to do their job is predicated on the fact that they do not have to literally go to McDonald's and flip burgers to make ends meet.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what losing this kind of income would mean to the creative capacity of our artists?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, that question is fundamental to part of what we should be talking about.

We often hear in this current economic climate about how important it is that we support job creation and that we support good-paying jobs. I would argue that as the arts and culture community is fundamental to so many of our communities, it is very important that we protect artists' rights to make a decent living.

That romantic notion of starving artists living in garrets to produce their great works does not retain much romance when they have to pay their bills at the end of the day. What we want is a thriving arts and culture community that can pay its bills.

Another colleague talked about the multiplier effect. The arts and culture sector is an enormous contributor to many of our communities. People see the finished product and think that is all we are dealing with. However, they are not talking about all the suppliers for the painters. They are not talking about the people who provide the framing of those goods.

I could go on about the economic contribution that arts and culture makes, but in the context of this particular bill, we need to ensure that we do the job of protecting both the consumer and the producer.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, it was interesting that one point the member made was that at the very least we are able to have this debate and that the opposition, the official opposition in this case, is prepared to go to committee to hear from more witnesses. We spent a lot of time in the last Parliament on this matter. We have spent a lot of time in a number of Parliaments on it. All of us have probably reviewed some of the testimony we heard at committee, and it is gratifying to know that one part of the opposition is prepared to hear more testimony and hear from more Canadians.

I wonder if she might comment on some of the provisions in the bill that deal specifically with PVRs and time shifting, which would allow Canadians to no longer live in fear of how they watch their TV. I wonder if she would also comment on the notice and notice provisions that we have put in the bill with respect to Internet service providers.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I think what the parliamentary secretary has raised in his questions is the very complexity of this particular piece of legislation. He is quite correct. In previous Parliaments, we did have committee hearings dealing with various aspects of this bill, and I was just looking for the direct quote on the legislative summary.

However, what we found in previous committee hearings was, in effect, that there was no consensus about how to deal with some of these issues. The reason New Democrats are supporting having this go back to committee is to deal with some of those very complex issues that are not currently reflected in the bill, in the hope that we can amend the bill to better reflect what we believe Canadians are telling us.

I look forward to future discussions on this particular piece of legislation, because it is very important that we engage in copyright reform in our country.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have once again introduced a bill to modernize the Copyright Act.

Bill C-11 is identical to the previous copyright legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. Copyright modernization has been needed for a long time, especially with the advent of new technologies. The new legislative amendments would adapt Canadian rules to take into account new technologies and would also harmonize them with current international standards. This is a very complex issue because it involves the demands of stakeholders in artistic communities, universities, the technology sector, business and consumer protection groups.

This bill will create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners, preventing access to copyrighted works. This will result in a situation where digital locks will practically trump all other rights, including fair dealing for students and journalists.

This gives rise to a number of problems that I would like to highlight. First, there is the danger of creating situations where consumers will not be allowed to use content for which they have already paid. Although the bill contains some concessions for consumers, they are undermined by the government's refusal to reach a compromise on the most contentious copyright issue in Canada: the provisions regarding digital locks. Many stakeholders from the areas concerned believe that digital locks are completely obsolete and that only a few industries, such as the video game and computer software industries, still use such protection.

Although the Conservative government continues to say that the proposed changes to the Copyright Act will protect the best interests of Canadian consumers, the reality is that the Conservatives have based their policy on the concerns of large copyright holders, especially those in the United States. The real winners with Bill C-11 are the major movie studios and record labels, and not Canadian consumers.

Recent information published by WikiLeaks also demonstrates that the main copyright owners in the United States conspired with the Conservatives regarding Canada's Copyright Act. One of the most worrying WikiLeaks revelations is that a key staff member under the industry minister at the time encouraged the United States to put Canada on their piracy watch list in order to pressure Parliament to pass new legislation that would weaken the rights of Canadian consumers.

I would also like to point out that digital locks supersede all other rights set out in the act. That includes changing the format for someone who is visually impaired, for example. The goal is to allow recording companies and movie studios to protect their declining capacity to generate profit.

These new provisions would require that, if a digital lock has been used, copies made for education purposes must automatically be erased in five days and class notes be destroyed within 30 days of the course ending. That will have serious consequences for students who take distance-education courses. When it comes to distance education, for example, the provisions in the new bill mean that people living in a remote community will have to burn their class notes 30 days after downloading them. That is not an improvement on the current situation and it is not an appropriate use of the copyright regulations.

I should point out that the Conservatives talk about fair dealing for purposes of education, but this is not defined in the legislation. Anyone can make a claim for this kind of use. For example, in Quebec, an agreement signed in 1982 between the educational sector and the collectives such as Copibec allows for certain products from authors and artists to be copied, in exchange for compensation. However, the Conservatives' Bill C-11 would encroach upon this agreement. This would lead to an estimated loss of $10 million. There is a lot of uncertainty about what teachers can do with these works. I should point out that a society that wants to expand its knowledge must regularly quote authors who are well educated and who are behind the creation of new knowledge that allows our society to advance and develop.

The compromise provisions in Bill C-11 would officially include current grey area practices, for example, practices that allow users to record television shows to watch later, provided that they do not create a library of recorded content, as well as practices that allow a user to transfer musical works from a CD to an MP3 player and make backups. The bill will also create new exceptions to the Copyright Act for fair dealing, including exceptions for teachers and for parody and satire. The exceptions in Bill C-11 are among the most controversial elements of the new bill. The long and complex list of exceptions does not adequately recognize the rights of creators. In fact, these exceptions create new means for consumers to access protected content without also creating new ways to compensate creators for the use of their work.

With this bill, the Conservatives have intentionally avoided addressing the question of a possible extension of the private copying exception. An exception for private copying has been very effective in the past concerning cassettes, DVDs and CDs. The NDP agrees that the Copyright Act needs to be modernized, but we feel that this bill has too many glaring problems. In some cases, it even creates new problems where there were none before.

The NDP wants to and is willing to amend the bill so that it betters reflects the interests of Canadian authors and consumers. We in the NDP strongly believe that changes to copyright in Canada can strike a balance between creators' rights to be fairly compensated for their work and consumers' rights to have reasonable access to content. For the benefit of the various stakeholders, we need to create a fair system of royalties for artists. This bill grants several new privileges concerning access to content, but it does not provide any new ways to pay artists. In its current state, this bill deprives artists of several million dollars in revenue. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that Canada's arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion per year to our economy, which represents 7.4% of Canada's GNI, and support some 1.1 million jobs, or about 6% of the Canadian labour force. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can only survive in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

Despite the important contribution made by these industries, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year. The money the artist invests in production must also be subtracted from this amount. As a result, artists make an average annual income of approximately $8,000.

It appears that all efforts to reform the Copyright Act in Canada in recent years have had very little to do with creating a system that balances the rights of creators and those of the public. Rather, these efforts seem to be attempts to meet the demands of large content owners in the United States, such as movie studios, recording companies and video game developers.

We are therefore proposing to delete from the copyright modernization bill the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. We support shorter sentences for those found guilty of violating the Copyright Act because this would prevent excessive recourse to litigation against individuals, a situation that is problematic in the United States.

Furthermore, the legal uncertainty surrounding the terms “fair dealing for the purpose of education” and “reasonable grounds” will lead creators to take legal action against users. A court decision can take years and such procedures will be extremely costly for both creators and users, and will result in costs that are higher than the penalties set out in the bill. The Conservatives have ignored the opinions of the experts heard in committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009.

As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. This bill will violate creators' rights and compromise our ability to compete in the digital realm of the world economy. Losses for all Canadian creators are estimated at $126 million.

That is why, although the NDP firmly believes that it is high time to update the Copyright Act, we cannot support this bill, which has too many obvious problems. Contrary to the Conservatives, we in the NDP will work hard to amend the bill—

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He could perhaps finish his comments during the period for questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but the opposition has again pointed out that the best way to solve a lot of the copyright issues is to tax Canadians more. This is not something that we on this side of the House are contemplating.

Could my colleague discuss a bit the provisions of the bill which make it an infringement to induce or to enable others to steal the work of artists, such as movies, sound recordings and video games? Does the hon. member agree with those provisions in the bill that would protect those artists? Is that one of the sections that not only he but the rest of the members in his caucus will support?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Speaker, compensation for artists' work cannot be considered a tax. In the past, there were levies placed on every blank CD and cassette tape sold. This allowed people to record music. It is important for authors to receive royalties for their products. With the new iPods, everything is downloaded for free. People think that they have the right to do so, when that is obviously not the case. It is important for artists to be compensated for their work.

When an iPod is produced, everyone is paid: the iPod manufacturer, the box manufacturer and the packaging manufacturer. Everyone is compensated. This product is designed to hold music. But the artist who created the music is not compensated. It is completely absurd to encourage such a situation. Yes, we must prevent people from downloading for free, but we must also compensate the artists who produce these works.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Madam Speaker, we hear the word tax being thrown around a lot in this conversation.

I come from an area which benefits from the use fees that are attributed to intellectual property. What is being looked for is use fees. If someone uses a product, then that individual should pay for that product.

My colleague brought up the fact that the people who created the iPod are paid. Patent holders, which is a type of copyright, hold a number of patents on various aspects of the iPod and other MP3 players and they are paid with each unit they have sold.

Why is it so hard to understand that the creators of the content that goes on to these patented objects should want to be paid as well? Why is it referred to as a tax because of that? Could my colleague elaborate on that?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

I thank my colleague for his question. A fee for use cannot be considered a tax. Creators produce music, which is available on the Internet. People think that they can download it for free and put it on their MP3 players. Everyone was paid for the MP3 player, the product that plays the music—even the manufacturer of the paper and packaging. Everyone was paid, but the artist who created the work that users put on their iPods is not. That is completely absurd and we cannot allow that. Artists must be compensated for their work. We cannot consider that to be a tax. My colleague is absolutely right: it is not a tax; it is a fee for use.