Carole Lavallée

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to BillC-2, even though this is the third time I have debated it in the House.

This is the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, the former Bill C-23, which has come back to the House again.

We really do not understand the Conservative government’s determination to make this a priority bill. This agreement with Colombia contains a number of flaws and raises a number of serious problems. Implementing it would be a serious mistake.

The Conservative government’s motivation for signing a free trade agreement really has nothing to do with trade, it has to do with investment. The agreement contains an investment protection chapter, which would make life easier for Canadian investors who want to invest in the mining sector in Colombia in particular.

Even that is negative, and I will say why in a moment. There is nothing positive about this free trade agreement and we will gain nothing from it. It is therefore incomprehensible that they would want to sign it.

Colombia has one of the worst records in the world and probably in Latin America when it comes to human rights. Thousands of trade unionists have been killed. Since 1968, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed because of their union work, 46 of them in 2008.

Trade unionists are the target of violence, among other things. There have been many population displacements, and this is not because the people are not sedentary or like to move around. These displacements show that Colombia is a country that has no regard for fundamental rights. There are numerous examples of human rights abuses.

It is mainly small farmers and small miners who are displaced, who have to leave their land to accommodate the huge agri-food or mining corporations, probably the ones the Conservative government wants to help. There are various ways of displacing farmers and people who have a small mine.

You can make death threats against an individual or his children. Most of us would have cleared out long ago. There is also murder, which is even worse. As well, people’s land is flooded so they are no longer able to earn a living, and this forces them to leave. After that, the land is dried out so it can be used.

A fundamental principle of free trade agreements is not being respected. Normally a free trade agreement is signed by two countries with similar economies. I will not go so far as to say that nothing could be more dissimilar than the economies of Colombia and Canada, but that is pretty close to the reality.

Colombia has immense poverty: 47% of the population lives below the poverty line and 12% lives in absolute poverty. One fifth of the population lives on less than $1 a day. I did not invent this statistic; it comes from the UN.

The crime statistics also point to a very sinister side of Colombia. Before I begin quoting the Department of Foreign Affairs, I would like to say that in 2008, the crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41%, in comparison with 14% the previous year.

I do not think there is a legitimate reason for signing this free trade agreement. Even this government's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is discouraging people from travelling to Colombia. On the Foreign Affairs website, the warnings and recommendations for the public advise against going. In addition, no one wants to go as part of a mining project.

The advice is very clear when it comes to those who work for or in the mines.

This government makes some general recommendations about Colombia. On one hand, it is saying that we will sign a free trade agreement with the country. On the other hand, it is saying that no one should go there:

Exercise a high degree of caution

Presidential elections will take place in Colombia on May 30, 2010... Public gatherings and areas where demonstrations may occur should be avoided.

Canadians should exercise a high degree of caution due to the unpredictable security situation. Although there is no specific information about future terrorist activities or threats against Canadian citizens in Colombia, Canadians should be vigilant and avoid any unattended packages or parcels and bring them to the attention of security personnel.

It does not seem so bad up to that point, but here is the next part.

Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants, underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports.

How can we go to Colombia and sign a free trade agreement when our government is specifically telling us not to go there because government buildings and airports are considered dangerous? It is completely incomprehensible.

Regional Warning

Avoid non-essential travel

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against non-essential travel to the city of Cali and most rural areas of Colombia, because of the constantly changing security situation and the difficulty for the Colombian authorities of securing all of the country’s territory.

Another regional warning reads:

Avoid all travel

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel...located along the border with Ecuador...The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damage to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.

How can we sign a free trade agreement with a country like that? How can we travel there to tour around and see the sights?

Civil Unrest

National parks, wildlife refuges, and city outskirts are often convenient hideouts for illegal groups and should be avoided, as armed clashes are frequent in such areas.

How can we travel in this country with which we have signed a free trade agreement?

Crime

For security reasons, it is preferable to arrive at Medellín's José Maria Córdova International Airport during the day to avoid the road from the airport to the city after dark.

It makes no sense.

Avoid going to bars alone.

Some will say this should always be avoided. In any case, it continues:

Never leave your drink or food unattended. There have been numerous incidents of drugs being used (including scopolamine) to incapacitate travellers in order to rob them. Scopolamine can be administered through aerosols, cigarettes, gum, or in powder form. Typically, travellers are approached by someone asking for directions; the drug is concealed in a piece of paper and is blown into the victim's face. Exercise extreme caution, as scopolamine can cause prolonged unconsciousness and serious medical problems.

And we are going to sign a free trade agreement in this context? I left one of the best excerpts for last.

Colombia has one of the highest kidnapping rates in the world.

As we all know, Ingrid Betancourt was held in captivity for six years.

While kidnapping is primarily aimed at Colombians, foreigners can be targeted by guerrilla groups in all parts of the country, especially persons working for (or perceived to be working for) oil and mining companies.

[12th Jutra Awards Gala, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all of Quebec honoured Quebec film at the Jutra awards ceremony, which I had the pleasure of attending at the TOHU in Montreal. Once again, we were blown away by the talent and creativity of the artists, as well as by the diversity and quality of the films.

It was obvious at this gala that a new generation of actors, producers and film professionals are re-energizing and renewing the creativity of the Quebec nation.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to extend sincere congratulations to the recipients. Thank you, Anne Dorval, Sébastien Ricard, Pierre Gill, Denis Villeneuve and Xavier Dolan. Thanks to all of you for the beautiful emotions.

I would like to repeat the message of the lifetime achievement award recipient, René Malo, who said that film funding has not increased in the past 10 years although budgets have doubled. He added that piracy is the cancer of our film industry and warrants a solid copyright law.

The support we give to the Quebec film industry must be equal to its talent.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to quibble over whether Quebeckers or Canadians have the stronger, more intense, more imposing culture; not at all. In the House, day after day and week after week, we see that the nation of Quebec is in a different situation and that its needs are different.

For example, this week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revealed a new regulatory policy for television. One aspect of this policy is that from now on, television broadcasters can reduce their Canadian content, and thus their Quebec content as well, from 60% to 55%.

This measure is essentially aimed at Canada and not at all at Quebec. Why? Because in Quebec, Quebec content is much higher than 60%. I do not have the exact figures, but during prime time, Quebec television stations must be broadcasting nearly 80% Quebec content.

Accordingly, Quebec does not face the same problems the rest of Canada does. Are Quebec's problems easier to resolve? I do not know, but they are different and they have to be treated differently.

We have different problems and a different language. However, in Quebec, there is a real star system and everything we need to nourish it. There is an audience that eats up artistic activities of any kind and that loves Quebec artists and their art. Quebeckers keep asking for more; the television ratings prove it. When there is a Quebec production, a new series or a show by a Quebec artist, the public happily tunes in to watch the program.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has heard from many witnesses and we have noted that the same thing is not happening elsewhere in Canada. Other areas have difficulty producing Canadian content and when they do produce it, they have difficulty attracting an audience, likely because of the language. But I am not here to do such an analysis; Canadians can do it for themselves.

Last year the vice-president of CBC/Radio-Canada said that Canadians are the only people in the world who prefer their neighbour's television. That is not at all the case in Quebec. We are very lucky; we have everything we need. Our artists are good, we enjoy them and we do not have such problems.

When we see the CRTC lowering the requirements in terms of Canadian content, we know that this is not for us. While the commission notes that our problems are different, it always ends up proposing solutions that are enforced from coast to coast to coast, in Canada and in Quebec. Yet these solutions do not suit Quebeckers, because they do not correspond at all to our reality.

When we talk about Quebec's problems and values, and about the Quebec nation, the other members of this House believe it is only natural, because we are sovereignists and all we want is Quebec independence. However, I have a letter here from Quebec's Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women, Christine St-Pierre. She is not a sovereignist or a separatist. She is a Liberal, a federalist and a member of Jean Charest's government, Charest being a former Conservative leader, no less.

Ms. St-Pierre wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on March 23, 2009. This letter was sent almost a year ago, and I have never even seen an acknowledgment of receipt. But I will come back to that.

I would like to read the letter because it is extremely important in the history of Quebec culture and communications. It is not the first letter the Quebec government has sent to the federal government. In the letter, the completely federalist Christine St-Pierre is asking the federal Conservative government to transfer responsibility for both culture and communications to the Government of Quebec.

I will read the letter:

Dear Minister,

I am writing to reiterate—reiterate means “repeat” or “do again”—the Government of Quebec's desire to undertake discussions about an agreement on culture and an agreement on communications with the Government of Canada. This request was made in a letter addressed to your predecessor—I cannot name her, but she is a woman, she was the Heritage minister, and she is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—on April 9, 2008, and to her colleagues, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.—The members opposite know about this because several of them received a letter.— Quebec once again stated its position on August 13, 2008, in a second letter I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage—who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—.

In September 2008, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, reiterated—there is that word “reiterated” again, which is a bit tiresome, but that is the word she used; some might say that more tiresome still is the fact that she had to reiterate anything at all, and they would be right—our request of the federal government to undertake negotiations about agreements on culture and communications with Quebec over the coming year. The Premier stated that Quebec wanted to assume control, within the province, of all federally funded cultural programs. He—Jean Charest, the Premier of Quebec—expressed the Government of Quebec's desire to have funds managed by Canadian Heritage and major federal funding institutions—such as the Canada Council for the Arts—transferred to it, taking into account Quebec's historical share.—I will have more to say later on about Quebec's historical share, which is not a per capita portion because Quebec's historical share of the culture and communications sector is much higher than that. —

—Now we come to a subtitle or subheading:—Agreement on Culture—and later on, we will come to Agreement on Communications. I mention this because it is no fun hearing someone read a letter without being able to see it. I am trying to read it in a way that will help everyone visualize it.—

Quebec is the only francophone state in North America, and it has a culture of its own. —As I said before, these are not sovereignists talking, but Quebec's federalist culture minister.—The Canadian Parliament has, in fact, recognized the Quebec nation. —The minister is asking the government to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. We are a nation, and we want the government to act accordingly.— Culture falls within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. —Maybe I should repeat that. Culture falls within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. Is that clear enough?—Quebec's desire to exercise its jurisdiction over culture is inextricably linked to the identity of the Quebec nation. —I will not repeat every sentence twice, but I suggest that everyone listen closely because every word is important.—The Government of Quebec must ensure the long-term survival and development of Quebec culture.—I really want to repeat that sentence because it is well put and perfectly aligned with the Bloc Québécois' thinking despite having been said not by a separatist or a sovereignist or anyone like that, but by a staunch federalist, Christine St-Pierre, in a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.—

Quebec is seeking greater coherence when it comes to government-funded cultural measures. The province wishes to integrate its cultural development in the artistic, industrial and civic spheres. Greater coherence will enable the province to achieve its cultural goals as set out in the 1992 Politique culturelle, the cultural policy passed unanimously by the National Assembly.

The federal government's many cultural measures, though primarily directed to financing, have a definite effect on cultural development in Quebec.

A Canada-Quebec agreement on culture would provide Quebec with control over public funding of cultural activities within the province. The agreement should therefore cover the complete envelope of funds associated with federal programs that subsidize and fund culture and heritage.

As far back as 1992, the Charlottetown Accord stated that “Provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over cultural matters within the provinces”.

I want to point out that Minister St-Pierre wants to see practical mechanisms for participating in the development and definition—

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

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.