Mr. Speaker, first let me emphasize that our government is committed to fostering creativity, innovation and economic growth and giving Canadian creators and consumers the tools they need to keep Canada competitive internationally. We see this through all the efforts that have been made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
He is certainly a young minister, but I do not think there is a person in the House who knows more about digital technology, emerging technology, than the Minister of Canadian Heritage. At the same time, he is transitioning with that knowledge and he is also leveraging support, whether through the Canada media fund or the Canada music fund. There is a five-year commitment to the Canada music fund. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is really leading the cultural sector in this country, and it is exciting to see.
Today, we have been asked to consider a motion proposed by the opposition members in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which would tax all iPods, all MP3 players, all cellphones, all BlackBerrys and any other device that can hold media.
As my parliamentary colleagues likely already know, Canada has had a levy equalling less than a dollar on blank recording media such as CDs since 1997. In the intervening years, newer technologies came along with built-in memory to store music and other electronic files.
To properly consider the motion presented before us today, we must be aware of the scope of the issues involved and the related technical details. This is indeed a very complex issue, and there are many views and perspectives that must be considered.
I want to take a few moments to describe the Canadian private copying regime. To begin with, I will remind members of the continuing impact of new technology on the copyright landscape and how it has evolved and continues to evolve in recent times. When music was just available on vinyl records or in live performances, only people with specialized skills and equipment could make copies of it. Even as tape machines became available, the task of making copies was cumbersome and difficult. In addition, there was a noticeable decline in the quality of the first and then subsequent duplications.
I am sure many of us can remember waiting beside the radio with our finger over the “record” button waiting for our favourite top-10 hit. I know in Peterborough it was 980 CHEX that I was listening to as a kid, and I remember sitting there with my tape recorder, trying to time that song just right. It did not work out very often.
As technology improved, customers found it easier to make copies. It became relatively easy for a consumer, for example, to buy a vinyl record to listen to at home and make a tape of it to listen to in the car. It was just as easy to make an additional copy for a friend or two. This practice became more widespread, and that was a problem. The holders of music copyright were not compensated for the copies of their work. For consumers it was also a problem, because making any copy at all was illegal.
At the same time, enforcing the rules was very difficult. It is one thing to pursue an individual who makes thousands of copies of a single work and then distributes them without the permission of the owner. It is quite another when it is millions of people copying thousands of works.
Canada's private copying regime, created in 1997, was a response to this difficult issue. Since copies were distributed on recordable media, such as CDs, the regime imposed a levy upon them. The moneys collected in this way were then distributed to copyright holders of the works being copied. To do this, the Copyright Act had to be amended to allow consumers to make copies for their private use on some audio recording media. It was also necessary to give Canada's Copyright Board the power to set the levy for each medium. The Copyright Act, which assigns these powers, requires the board to consider three issues when determining these levies: the consumer's ability to pay, the impact of tariffs on black and grey markets, and the public interest.
The system is not intended to compensate owners for each copy of their works made. In fact, it could not be, since it would be impossible to track the necessary data. Nor is the system intended to levy charges in a way that was precisely related to the consumer's actual use of works. The levy is applied irrespective of the actual use of the blank media. The Copyright Board sets the levy taking into account the criteria I mentioned earlier and considering general usage patterns.
The hon. member who spoke just before me talked about the levy on CDs, CDRWs, DVDs and DVDRWs.
Quite often these units of storage are not used for recording music. They are used for recording things like photos. Sometimes students will use them for recording lectures at school so they can review them later. To place a levy or a tax on these media just because they could be used for music is obviously something that a lot of my constituents have often had trouble with. They do not understand why there would be just a blanket charge being placed upon them, on the assumption that is what the storage device would be used for.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective is responsible for receiving these levies and distributing them to the rights holders. Based in Toronto, this non-profit agency represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies. In the 13 years since its inception, the Canadian Private Copying Collective has stated that it has distributed over $180 million to copyright holders in the music sector.
The notion that Canadians should pay an additional tax on recordable media to compensate copyright holders appears to have become generally accepted, although as I noted, there are ongoing debates.
I should note that consumers purchasing CDs were not necessarily aware of it. In fact often, when I talk to folks in my constituency to ask their opinion on the motion that has been brought forward by the hon. member, I am surprised how many people are not aware that they have been paying this tax for some time. And when they find out about it, they are not necessarily happy.
One could say Canadians have accepted their new rights to make copies for private use, but I do not think that would be accurate either. A more precise way to put it would be to say that an already widespread practice has become even more so.
Technology once again has radically changed the game that these rules, established in 1997, were meant to govern. Herein lies the problem. New challenges have emerged. For example, an MP3 player about the size of a credit card can store more music than was once held in an entire boxful of CDs. I own hundreds of CDs. I have purchased them all, but despite all the racks and shelves I have to hold these CDs, I can now store all of them on a device that I could fit in my pocket. In fact it would be smaller than my car keys.
Today consumers can easily download and listen to music from online sources or from previously owned copies without ever needing to purchase a recordable medium such as a CD. However there are many means by which to download media, on websites such as iTunes, where consumers pay for the music and files they download.
The opposition is suggesting that the Copyright Board simply place an extra tax on all devices that are able to store these media, which could result in a tax as high as $80 per device, and that is just on an iPod. This is where we get into the difficult argument on this.
I asked this of the hon. member a few moments ago. She was using a tax, although she used the word levy, of $25 on a 30-gigabyte iPod, but for home computers the hard drive capacity is now measured in terabytes, which is significantly more. How therefore would we determine the tax or levy on a device with that much memory? This is clearly a problem.
Not surprisingly, the tribunals and courts that adjudicate copyright law in Canada were asked to rule on the matter of taxing new media devices. I am not going to go into all the details of the various decisions, however the salient point is that the final decision by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 10, 2008, excluded memory in digital audio recorders, such as MP3 players, from the Canadian private copying regime. That was the decision of an independent judiciary.
The motion adopted by the opposition members on the Standing Committee on Heritage proposes to amend the Copyright Act to bring such devices under the regime. The motion provides us with the opportunity to further consider the debate over the private copying regime. What are the challenges? What are the possible solutions? And what do Canadians want? That is something that all members in this House would do well to consider.
This debate may help shed light on the preferences of Canadians and the impact of recent court decisions in the scope of the regime. It is also important that we consider whether we need to approach this debate from a micro or a macro perspective. Should we begin by considering the forest, or do we want to focus on the trees?
Should we begin, as this motion proposes, by considering one possible solution to a particular problem? Following this line of thought, we would ask ourselves whether or not we should amend the law such that MP3 players are not included in the private copying regime.
Thus, let me suggest we take a more holistic perspective and think about the broader issues. As I said a moment ago, we should be considering the effect on all Canadians, the effect on business, the effect on students, the effect on the everyday constituents we all represent. That is the holistic approach we should be taking.
Before the adoption of this motion, our government had already begun thinking about the larger issues related to copyright law in Canada. In the summer of 2009, we launched a consultation process, and we committed to strengthening laws governing intellectual property and copyright in the 2010 Speech from the Throne.
To ensure the consultation process would be as open as possible, we embraced new technology and created copyright consultation websites and held live events in town halls across the country. As the Speaker would well know, one of these copyright consultations was held in Peterborough, where stakeholders from right across the spectrum took part. We also held them in major centres right across the country, such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. In all sectors of the country consultations were heard, and a very diverse group of Canadians came forward to talk about these complex issues.
A simple review of the results of the consultation process shows us that Canadians are clearly aware and care deeply about the issue of copyright.
The website received more than 30,000 unique visits. More than 2,200 visitors registered with the site and left more than 2,500 comments. We also received more than 8,000 written submissions on the copyright consultation.
Moreover, as I said, we hosted round-table events in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Peterborough, Gatineau, Montreal, the city of Quebec and Halifax. In each of these venues and in online discussions, we asked Canadians to respond to questions covering five types of issues.
We asked them about how copyright law affects their individual lives. How do Canada's copyright laws affect them and how should Parliament modify the existing laws?
We then asked them to think in terms of the larger community, based on Canadian values and interests. How should the copyright system be made to withstand the test of time? As technology changes, how do we put in place a law that is always timely, that is always relevant?
We asked respondents to think in terms of creative interests. What sorts of changes to copyright rules do they believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada? That is so important to our future.
We asked them to think in terms of economic interests. What sort of copyright changes would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
Finally, we asked them to think in terms of Canada's remaining competitive in the global market. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the digital economy?
What did we learn?
First, we learned there are many views on any one issue pertaining to copyright, often differing even within stakeholder groups, be they creators, distributors or consumers.
Others focused on related issues. On the one hand, having been used to making copies of music that they have legally acquired, they wish to be free to continue to do so with minimal restrictions. Others are concerned with format shifting. Having purchased music in one format, they wonder why they should pay an additional tax or fee on a new device to which they will transfer these files.
Members will remember my story about all the CDs I have purchased. At some point, when I have a bit more time on my hands, I would not mind taking all those CDs and putting them onto a digital device. The question is whether, when I make that format shift, I should have to pay for all of those recordings again, because I have already purchased them once. That is something a lot of folks come to me about. They feel that if they have bought a CD they should not have to pay again. But certainly this motion would see all folks charged a levy or a tax, as I see it, on the devices onto which they would actually transfer those media.
In short, we are faced with the challenge of addressing a number of different interests and views, while ensuring Canada continues to be well positioned in today's global economy.
Our government recognizes that to succeed in today's global economy, Canada must keep step as the world races forward. The relentless pace of technology means every day there is something newer, faster and better. We are committed to strengthening laws governing intellectual property and copyright to encourage new ideas and protect the rights of Canadians whose research, development and artistic creativity continue to contribute to Canada's prosperity. We seek not just to protect the rights but also to enhance incentives to do research, to develop ideas and to create art.
I have met with rights holders right across this country. I do not know how many members in this chamber are aware of the contributions that creative Canadian companies are making globally.
We are the number two producer of video games in the entire world, right here in Canada, and producers are asking for our protection in copyright. We are one of the leaders in producing films and dramatic art.
Certainly I know that all members of the House are well aware of the incredible cultural contributions that we make. Our artists and musicians are leading the world in so many new and exciting ways and their work is truly inspiring.
Effective copyright law will help create a market that will protect incentives for those Canadians who develop new ideas that will enrich our lives and increase the prosperity of our nation. The last thing, though, that Canadians need is another tax.
