House of Commons Debates VOLUME 146 Ï NUMBER 034 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 41st PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, October 21, 2011 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 2325 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, October 21, 2011 The House met at 10 a.m. works will be used. Sadly, this is conspicuously absent from this document, or at least is addressed minimally. Prayers As an artist, and an advocate of the bill since its previous incarnation as Bill C-32 through to its present state, I have discussed the issue at length. When meeting with individuals and members of GOVERNMENT ORDERS organizations in my constituency office as well as here in Ottawa I hear the same concern expressed. Although they agree that new Ï (1005) copyright legislation is needed, they all ask why money is being [English] taken out of the pockets of artists and why their needs are not being addressed. COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION ACT The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read a second Indeed we have entered new territory and, as with anything new, time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. there is always adaptation required. For the first time in history the Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I types of physical controls that copyright holders held in the past are thank the hon. member from Longueuil for sharing his time with me. gone. Entertainment and academic works are accessed more easily and therefore are less protected. I rise to speak to Bill C-11. It is a complex and quite honestly dumbfounding piece of legislation. It attempts to strike a balance between the interests of consumers and stakeholders. What protection mechanisms do artists have? There are a few cursory exemptions from prosecution or civil action for consumers The need that the bill is meant to address has been lost in the haste and their advocates. In exchange a rather dizzy and confusing series of having legislation in place by an arbitrary date. However, it must of vague obligations are offered, one of which includes shredding not only answer immediate concerns but also future concerns of their class notes. The artists and cultural communities are offered lip stakeholders. In its haste, the government is missing a golden service with regard to the principle of equitable compensation for opportunity to provide support for Canada's creators and in fact is their creative works. They are also offered an inconsistent and abdicating its responsibility to them. frankly scary approach toward the protection of those works as well In this era of ever-evolving, growing and fluid digital integration as compensation for them. of communications and entertainment, it is even more important that the bill strike a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers and their ability to access and enjoy artistic content and the In its present form, Bill C-11 is an unequivocal failure. It outright undeniable rights of the creators of that content. It is imperative that fails to satisfy the two most important benchmarks we as a sound legal framework be established to protect the rights of parliamentarians use for evaluation. It fails to establish clear, creators and other stakeholders. universally understood rules for consumers. It also fails to ensure equitable enforceable compensation rules for those people who The works of artists can inspire, comfort, educate and on occasion dedicate their lives to the creative enterprise. help us express that which we are unable to express on our own. In addition, those works fuel the heart of a massive economic engine that drives $85 billion into the Canadian economy and provides 1.1 Ï (1010) million jobs, yet those works still are grossly undervalued. The bill underlines that fact by putting business, consumer and user rights ahead of the rights of the creators of those works. Many of my colleagues have remarked on the many practical problems of this law, some of which we in the official opposition are The nature of copyright is better expressed in the French language, committed to remedy through good faith dialogue at committee “droits d'auteur”, meaning author's rights, the right of the author, the stage. I hope my colleagues across the way will work with us on this creator. That right gives artists the ability to determine how their approach with purpose and in the spirit of openness. 2326 COMMONS DEBATES October 21, 2011 Government Orders After a long career in the arts, I came to Parliament as a voice for the advent of other forms of digital media, CDs are virtually those artists and a voice for the constituents in my riding who are becoming obsolete and this money has been in decline since artists. From my perspective, this law's greatest weakness is its approximately 2006. complete failure to extend or acknowledge the vital and current compensation framework upon which so many artists, writers, That is what the bill must provide compensation for. It musicians and creators depend for their livelihood. expropriates that money without providing any form of compensa- tion. During the 2008 federal election, the Prime Minister made his feelings with regard to artists clear. We took exception to that, Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I particularly in my home province of Quebec. The bill does little to am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-11, the copyright show any change of heart regarding the Prime Minister's view. The modernization bill. It is very appropriate that we are debating this images provoked by his words are misleading and undermine the bill today. It has a very useful function. artistic community, which contributes far more to this country than it receives. This week I had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with a Typically, today's Canadian artists continue to focus on their variety of artists in my office, led by members of the Canadian creative works more than where their next meal will come from. The Private Copying Collective, which is a group that works on these typical artists in this country have a median income of under very issues. The livelihood of its members depends on the outcome $13,000, yet the government sees fit to take $30 million a year out of of these issues. Artists across this country can only receive revenue their pockets. for and in support of their works in certain areas. Although they have certain tools at their disposal, they do not identify the bill as being a That party's characteristic cynicism, for which it grows ever more significant addition to their tool chest and in many ways do not see it famous, shows the value the members of the government have for as a solution. artists. I look at the discussion regarding digital access as a reminder of Artists liked the idea of the MP3 tax, but the Conservatives did the Wild West days when our forefathers came to this country and not, so they held it up as a red herring and it was never put in place. were given pieces of sticks and told to go out and stake their claims. That is unfortunate as the MP3 format is now the main means of For some reason, many people feel that the Internet offers that same copying music in this country. If we look at the shifting pattern of opportunity. However, like our forefathers who staked their claims, copying activity which the CPCC provided in its fact sheet, that is there are people who own the rights to works of art found on this the direction in which the industry and people are going. worldwide entity called the Internet. Unfortunately, the legislation is not working very well. The Internet is a tool. It is a medium through which we can access I admit that I have never copied anything from the Internet or any all sorts of information. However, if we walk down Sparks Street and music at all. I always buy music in a medium that comes in a plastic the HMV doors are open, that does not give us the right to walk into container with the artist's picture on the front and a description of his HMV, put a CD in our pocket and leave. We must provide or her work. I find that to be an acceptable way to obtain music. I compensation, which is what the bill fails to do. have not varied much from that. It might be that I am a bit of a [Translation] Luddite or perhaps I am a polite person as well. Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, which was very I believe that musicians provide a relief to society. Those young interesting. What struck me was the amount of $30 million that people in our society who engage in music are often not as troubled creators can collect from the existing fund. That is a very small as those who are not because they have an outlet for their emotions. amount of money compared to everything that is at stake and compared to the total cultural economic activity. A young artist speaking to me in my office expressed the fact that he did not want digital locks on everything. Rather, he wanted Could my colleague talk to us more about the fact that what our society to recognize and respect him. He wished for an ordered creators and artists are calling for represents a drop of water in the society that would understand the rationale of the music industry just economic ocean of all the potential spinoffs? as drivers driving down a highway understand its rationale.