We'll begin because we're running a bit late.
Welcome, everyone, to the 114th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
We are continuing our study of remuneration models for artists and creative industries.
I don't know whether our witnesses are here. I don't think the people from Artisti have arrived yet.
Is that correct? I see.
We have Solange Drouin from the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, and we have
from Re:Sound Music Licensing Company, Ian MacKay; and from the Songwriters Association, we have Greg Johnston and Damhnait Doyle.
Since Artisti isn't here yet, they can join us as we go along.
Then we'll begin with the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo.
Good morning and thank you for this invitation to appear before the committee today.
My name is Solange Drouin. I am Vice-President of Public Affairs and Executive Director of ADISQ. I am speaking on behalf of approximately 250 independent entrepreneurs—producers of sound recordings, entertainment, videos, recording companies, and artist managers—who are responsible, in particular, for the production of 95% of francophone music content in Canada.
The independent industrial structure that characterizes Canadian francophone music production emerged 40 years ago. It is unique in the world: French Canadian artists almost always turn to local entrepreneurs, small and medium-size enterprises, to assist them in producing and marketing their works.
Everywhere else in the world, music production is dominated by three major multinational businesses: Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. In the 1980s, those businesses abandoned our market, which enabled French Canadian artists and entrepreneurs to work together to create a dynamic ecosystem, a true star system, to which the audience here is now attached. This is a situation that should make Canadians and our leaders proud.
The fact nevertheless remains that these companies, the major multinationals, are still operating in our market. They are our competitors. Need we recall that they have massive resources compared to our own? Although the entire music industry has been in turmoil for more than 15 years, the independent businesses I represent have been left distinctly more vulnerable by the transformation of the competitive music market, which has become unfair and unbalanced. That fact must be taken into consideration in this process.
You have invited us to take part in a study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries in a copyright context. The remuneration of Canadian music content creators comes mainly from a combination of revenues and royalties from the exploitation of sound recordings and performances.
To optimize those two elements, the artists' professional entourage devote their energies to effectively marketing the artists' works. You legislators must ensure that all the statutes concerned are as effective as possible. It's simple: no consumption, no revenues. However, where there is consumption without adequate laws, there are no adequate revenues.
The Copyright Act is a pillar of the remuneration of music content creators. It is an economic statute that produces tangible effects for all Canadian content creators.
Consequently, the work you are engaged in will have serious consequences. You finally have an opportunity here to correct many aspects of the act that currently and unfairly deprive content creators of revenue.
As a result of the many exceptions that have been introduced into it over the years, particularly since 2012, the Copyright Act has become a veritable Swiss cheese, thus considerably weakening its scope and causing significant prejudice to rights holders: authors, artists, and producers. This is an incomprehensible situation in a country such as Canada and one that must urgently be terminated. At a time when we are welcoming the world here at home, it would be good for us to make a good impression.
We agree with several of the proposed amendments outlined by the previous witnesses, such as Music Canada, the Canadian Private Copying Collective, or CPCC, the Canadian Independent Music Association, or CIMA, and others that will follow us, such as Re:Sound.
Without providing an exhaustive list, here are the three amendments we specifically request.
First, you must finally eliminate, once and for all, the exemption from payment of royalties on the first $1.25 million of radio revenues so that Canadian content creators can stop subsidizing those businesses—the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, recently said it again—which are still highly profitable today.
Second, you must amend the definition of sound recording so that artists and producers can receive the royalties they are owed when their works are included in the soundtracks of audiovisual works.
Third, it is urgent that you amend the private copying system—which you have heard about—so it applies to all types of devices, such as smartphones and tablets, that are used by music consumers to copy music.
Mr. Macron could tell you all about that because France is doing a lot in this area.
The changes brought about by technology are obviously central to the discussions about this review. The act must clearly be consistent with music consumption practices but currently is not.
An act that is in sync with consumption practices is not an act that aims to reflect recent tools or trends, or else it risks falling constantly behind and mistakenly anticipating changes. On the contrary, it must be as technology-neutral as possible.
New technologies are tools that are available to all players in the music ecosystem, from creator to consumer, and including professional entourages. However, regardless of the tools used, the actions of each individual will remain unchanged. Songwriters write good songs, producers and recording companies promote them, and radio stations broadcast them.
Tools won't save creators. Blockchain technology, for example, might be another way for them to collect royalties from the use of their works. Would that tool be more effective than those that already exist? The question is being discussed, but one thing is certain: failing a strong act that protects works and ensures that royalties are paid for their use, optimizing royalty redistribution tools won't ultimately improve the situation of creators.
To be efficient, the Copyright Act must be attuned to international standards and consumer practices, and it must also serve creators.
I hope no one is unaware of the problems facing people in the music industry, but the scope of their losses bears repeating: Quebec sales of physical sound recordings have fallen 72% since 2004. Sales of digital works, which have never offset that decline, are shrinking as well: they have fallen 42%. For the majors, the large corporations in the music market, streaming has recently spurred a return to growth, but that news must be viewed with caution and a clear mind. Only a handful of artists, international stars who are listened to by millions around the world, enjoy the impact of streaming. One important point is that ADISQ estimates that it takes 30 million hits on these streaming services to make an album profitable. However, last year, the Quebec artist who came closest to that threshold had 8 million hits. That artist is in fact Half Moon Run, a group of anglophone musicians who perform outside the province.
I will conclude by saying that cultural diversity is a cherished principle in Canada. Content creators, authors, artists, and producers are its pillars. When they can't earn a living from their art, that diversity is directly threatened. That's the case today. Fortunately, you have the power to restore strength to an essential tool to ensure the continued existence of diverse and professional Canadian music production.
I hope you understand that urgent action is required. In 2016, ADISQ announced that the music industry was at a tipping point. Two years later, we are unfortunately approaching a point of no return. We need to turn the situation around now.
Our third recommendation is to treat performances incorporated in music videos as musical performances and not as cinematographic performances. Currently, once a performer authorizes the incorporation of his or her performance into a cinematographic work, including a video clip, he or she automatically waives his or her copyright for that use. For example, a performer whose performance is captured on video and is also audio-recorded may only exercise copyright or receive equitable remuneration when his or her sound performance is dissociated from the video.
Yet, a video clip is neither more nor less than a song with images. No song, no video! I do not know anyone who watches a YouTube music video of a song on mute. That person is in fact watching the song. In such a case, depriving the artist of his or her rights is absurd. In our view, it is imperative that Canada ratify the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and extend the exclusive and moral rights of performers in the sound recording industry to all performers.
That brings me to our fourth request.
The definition of sound recording must be changed so that the songs used in movies or TV shows are also covered by fair remuneration. The definition of sound recording which is contained in the act is problematic, since it excludes soundtracks of cinematic works broadcast at the same time as the film. This situation deprives performers of significant revenues, in addition to being discriminatory, since authors and music composers enjoy equivalent royalties for the use of their works. In 2012, the legislator recognized the same rights for performers in the sound recording industry as those of the authors. It is therefore difficult to understand that discrimination still exists.
Fifth, it is necessary to find ways to compensate performers for the use of their performances on the Internet. Quebec artists know that revenues from the streaming of their works are ridiculously low, even for their most popular songs.
The problem is in fact twofold. Firstly, revenues for non-interactive and semi-interactive webcasting are subject to a tariff set by the Copyright Board of Canada. This tariff is almost 11 times lower than the one in effect in the United States for the same period.
Revenues for webcasts of on-demand music content such as Spotify or Apple Music are subject to contractual arrangements between artists and producers that provide for the recovery of production costs before the payment of royalties to artists. Given the small sums generated by album sales as well as webcasting on demand, performers obviously too often find themselves deprived of royalties from this commercial exploitation of their performances.
Thank you. My name is Ian MacKay. I'm the President of Re:Sound Music Licensing Company. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today on this critical issue. This is something I am particularly passionate about, having worked in the music industry for 25 years as an artist lawyer at record companies and now in my present role.
Remuneration models for artists must adequately incentivize and compensate creators if you want those creators to continue to create. As the very talented and Juno award-winning artist William Prince said—and I'm paraphrasing here—if you want me to build you a house, I have to have a reasonable expectation I'm going to be paid.
As you've heard from many others, the Canadian recorded music industry has experienced significant disruption, shifting from an economy of dollars to one of pennies. There are critical changes needed to address outdated and unnecessary subsidies and exemptions that are unfairly preventing creators from receiving fair compensation for their work.
Where does Re:Sound fit in this? Well, you've heard from other witnesses about equitable remuneration. Luc Fortin, the president of the Quebec Musicians' Guild, told you in his testimony that this revenue stream is now the most significant that Canadian performers have under the Copyright Act in terms of income.
Re:Sound is the organization that collects and distributes equitable remuneration in Canada on behalf of more than 621,000 artists and sound recording owners whom we represent directly through our member organizations—Artisti, which is here today, along with RACS, MROC, CONNECT, and SOPROQ—as well as through bilateral agreements with international collective societies.
We're a not-for-profit organization. We collect from thousands of music users, including commercial radio, satellite radio, and individual businesses such as gyms, restaurants, nightclubs, etc. It's mandatory that the rights we administer be collectively administered. Creators cannot prevent businesses from using their recordings or negotiate directly; it's a blanket licence. Creators only get to rely on collecting equitable remuneration after the fact. These income streams are crucial for creators, and they go straight to creators. As has been referenced before, the money Re:Sound collects is split 50-50 between artists and sound recording owners at source.
Both the music industry and the copyright laws that govern it must keep pace with the rate of technological change. This is why we at Re:Sound are always working hard to innovate. We do this by working with organizations such as SOCAN on streamlining the licensing process for businesses, or as Mark Schaan, the director general at Industry mentioned in his testimony on May 22, we do things like “music has value” research, doing research to help music users understand how music brings value to their business and how they can use it as a competitive advantage.
We also work to ensure we distribute royalties as efficiently as possible. This is reflective in our work to obtain full radio logs from radio stations and our work with Music Canada and Bell Media to improve reporting of data to ensure that we distribute as much of every dollar to creators as possible.
We, and most importantly creators, are missing out because of outdated, unnecessary, and unfair exemptions in the Copyright Act that deprive creators of over $60 million a year in income. As you've heard from artists like Andrew Morrison of The Jerry Cans, artists' representatives such as the Canadian Federation of Musicians and Artisti here today, and organizations representing music creators including Music Canada, ADISQ, CIMA, and SOCAN, these are fundamental issues that need to be fixed.
It's rare to get this type of consensus. I think the only other issue on which there's been similar consensus is on the reform of the copyright board.
The two things that I want to talk about in particular, because they're closest to what we do, are the removal of the $1.25-million radio royalty exemption and the definition of “sound recording”. You've already heard from other people about this, so I will keep it brief and try to add a little bit more information.
Under the current act, as you've already heard, commercial radio stations are exempt from paying royalties to performers and sound recording owners on the first $1.25 million in revenue, regardless of whether the station is part of a large, profitable ownership group. This costs rights holders $8 million a year in lost income and is unwarranted for a highly profitable industry. It was meant to be a temporary measure, but it still exists 20 years later.
Internationally no other country has a similar exemption, and the exemption does not apply to songwriter and publishing royalties, meaning that performers and record labels are the only ones asked to subsidize a very profitable industry.
Some 81% of the programming time of commercial radio is music. Going back to William Prince's comment, 81% of the house is music and it should be paid out accordingly, with no subsidies or exemptions.
Furthermore, in terms of technological neutrality this subsidy is only available to commercial radio broadcasters. It's not available to other users of music who use music commercially, such as satellite radio, pay audio, and other businesses. It's not technologically neutral.
The second one is amending the definition of “sound recording”, a concern you've heard from other people as well. Under the current act, the definition of “sound recording” precludes artists and sound recording owners from receiving any royalties when their recordings are performed in TV and film soundtracks. Once again, this only applies to artists and sound recording owners, depriving them of, our estimate would be, approximately $55 million a year in lost royalties. When music is used in a TV show or a movie on Netflix, the composer, music publisher, and songwriter are paid, but the performers and sound recordings are not. This puts us out of step both between rights holders and internationally.
Re:Sound is also a member of the Canadian Music Policy Coalition that you've heard about. We support the recommendations outlined in the documents submitted on its behalf, many of which have been explained far more eloquently by others who have already appeared before the committee. These recommendations include continuing the important work that has been started regarding Copyright Board reform. We've been a very active participant in that process, which Artisti referred to as well. We recommend updating the private copying levy to make it technologically neutral. You've heard from a number of people in depth on that. We also recommend extending the terms of copyright for authors from 50 to 70 years. You heard very eloquently from SOCAN on that. Finally, we recommend closing the charitable exemption loophole created by section 32.2(3), which, once again, Gilles Daigle of SOCAN brought forward on June 5.
These, along with eliminating the $1.25 million exemption and fixing the sound recording definition, would make a profound difference for Canadian creators and bring us up to international standards.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to any questions.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Greg Johnston. I'm the president of the Songwriters Association of Canada.
On behalf of the SAC, I'd like to express our thanks for the invitation and the opportunity to appear before this committee. In addition, we would like to applaud the committee's efforts to hear directly from creators.
The SAC is a registered national arts organization with approximately 1,200 members dedicated to educating, assisting, and representing Canadian songwriters. We exist to nurture, develop, and protect the creative, business, and legal interests of music creators in Canada and around the world by pursuing the right to benefit from and receive fair compensation for the use of their work; the advancement of the craft and enterprise of songwriting; and the development of activities that allow members to reach out and enjoy the sense of community shared by creators.
Our volunteer board of directors is made up of professional songwriters from across the country. Diversity and regional representation are priorities when selecting the board's slate of directors.
It should be noted that the SAC is a signatory to “Sounding Like a Broken Record: Principled Copyright Recommendations from the Music Industry”, a document prepared by the members of the Canadian Music Policy Coalition. This document has been presented to and the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is our opinion that the recommendations put forth are actionable and would directly benefit creators.
I am a multi-instrumentalist session musician. I am a record producer. I am a songwriter. I am an audio/visual composer. I am also an entrepreneur, a small business owner, a taxpayer, a volunteer, a husband, and a father of two teenage musicians. I'm not a lobbyist, a copyright expert, or a lawyer, although there are a few on our board of directors.
I am also anonymous, like so many of my colleagues. We're the middle class of the music creator community and, quite simply put, two decades of disruptive technologies have left my community facing very difficult realities.
The way songwriters are remunerated for use of their works deserves special consideration. We are paid per purchase, per stream, and per public performance, which makes strong regulatory environments crucial to our financial success. As individuals, our voices are rarely heard, which is why we rely on and support collective management to represent our community's interests. In Canada, we are fortunate to have SOCAN represent our performing rights domestically and internationally. However, the speed at which technology develops demands that our collective management organizations be allowed to adapt and protect our rights as quickly.
On Copyright Board reform, the SAC believes that a strong, nimble, well-funded, and adequately staffed Copyright Board is a cornerstone to our success and survival. In a new digital reality, the speed at which tariffs are ruled upon and implemented is crucial. The technology sector has built staggering fortunes, many of which have been built on the backs of creators and their content. This David and Goliath dichotomy is simply unsustainable.
These, however, are the opportunities where government, in co-operation with the Copyright Board, can create a regulatory framework that serves technology, consumers—our fans—and the creators themselves. It is our opinion that strong, decisive action to reform the Copyright Board is a win for creators, a win for the little guy, and ultimately a win for consumers and fans, who we believe truly want and would even insist that creators be fairly remunerated.
Thank you, Greg, and thank you to the committee members for conducting this review. I must say that after hearing everybody speak, I'm a bit emotional. This is a very important topic for Canada and for all citizens.
My name is Damhnait Doyle. I'm the Vice-President of the Songwriters Association of Canada. I have been in this industry for 25 years, and I have only seen the standard of living decrease for those of us who have chosen to make this our profession. It is that—a profession, a highly skilled trade. We get up in the morning, get our kids off to school, and go to work, just as you do. We create the content for radio stations to play on your drive to work, for the DJ to play at your daughter's wedding, for your favourite album that you stream off the Internet when you have a dinner party.
When you signed on to this job—and thank you very much for being here today—you negotiated your salary, your health benefits, and your vacation days. If you were told, “I'm sorry, there are some issues going on with the government, and you are not going to be paid”, would you still be here today? How would you pay your mortgage, your health care, your child care?
I sit here today not getting paid but paying for after-school child care, so I can paint a vivid picture about the hard truths of the poverty affecting creators today. I wish I could use the term “middle class”, but the middle class of creators has been eviscerated at this point. I know only one musician in Toronto who has bought a house in the last 10 years; most cannot pay their rent, let alone go to the dentist.
I'm not talking about failed artists here. I'm talking about very high-profile, award-winning creators, people whose songs you know and love, who simply cannot make a living. It used to be shameful to say, as a creator, that you were struggling, because perhaps it looked like a reflection of your artistic merit, but we now are all in the same leaky boat.
I consider myself a very fortunate songwriter and musician. I have a hefty catalogue of songs, which I have placed in film and television in more than 100 countries. I've had several top five radio hits. I've won East Coast Music awards, SOCAN awards, Canadian Radio Music awards, and I've been nominated for several JUNO awards. I've performed here on Parliament Hill for Canada Day, toured with Willie Nelson, and played all over the world as far as Japan and Afghanistan, but still I do not make a living from music. Creators are being hammered from all sides, from minimized streaming income to piracy to outdated exemptions for big business. Everyone is getting paid in the music industry. They are. The only people not getting paid are creators.
Ten to 15 years ago, this was a very different story, but the entire ecosystem is sinking at the precipice. The water is rising, and it's rising fast. We need to stimulate the cultural economy before there are no more new artists and writers.
This brings me to copyright term extension. We need to get in line with the majority of our trading partners and extend the copyright term to life of the author plus 70 years. At life plus 50, we are way behind modern copyright laws, which puts our writers and rights holders at a serious disadvantage, not only in our country but globally. The loss of this income for Canadian publishers means less money spent developing new writers, which means fewer artists, fewer musicians, fewer studios, fewer touring crews, and fewer jobs all around.
As for the degradation of intellectual property as an asset, I liken it to buying a house. What if you passed that house down to your children; then, 50 years after your death, your children are kicked out of the house that they grew up in? Our laws are consistent with only minimum protections from the 100-year-old Berne convention, when 50 years was meant to cover two generations of descendants. This is not in line with current life expectancies.
I sit before you knowing that as writers, musicians, and creators, our impact in the culture in this country is immeasurable, and we do deserve to get paid for our work.
Thank you very much.
What I can do is speak generally about how things have changed since 2014.
We have done a study. It was done on illegal file sharing, which at this point has sort of been replaced by streaming. This is the rapid speed that we're trying to deal with in what I like to call “disruptive technologies”.
At one point, there were all these BitTorrents, and people were ripping all of our music off of them and storing them on their devices. Now everyone is streaming their devices and people aren't using the Torrents as much. In a lot of ways, the study that we did on the Torrents is not even that relevant anymore, because everything has changed so incredibly fast.
Again, I'll reiterate that if the Copyright Board were able to move more quickly and make decisions more quickly, then we could have tariffs on these new technologies faster. As it stands now, we wait years and years for tariffs to be ruled upon, and they're ruled upon information that is completely obsolete by the time it gets there. As some of my friends and colleagues here said, our rates are very, very low and not in keeping with international standards.
Copyright Board reform, and supporting and enabling the Copyright Board to work quickly, is definitely a way that we can participate in the technology that consumers want to use but still be remunerated for its use.
Madam Chair, I very much appreciate the witnesses we've had on this particular issue and the passion they bring to it.
One of the common things was the $1.25 million; we've heard it from everybody. On the extension of 50 years to 70 years, we've heard that from everybody.
On my own part, I have a disclaimer. I don't listen to the radio. If I go back to my youth, half the albums I bought were bought because of the art covers on them. They had phenomenal art. My son now raids them regularly.
Checking with my adult children, I found they moved to Sirius radio, and now they have moved away from that. When I check with my grandkids, they don't know what a radio is; they really don't. The younger generation don't listen to radio. They get it from where you say they get it.
Being an old guy, I remember the British back here. There was a news story recently about a pirate radio station off the coast of Britain finally closing up, because when you bring in regulations, they find a different way to get it. That's what happened in England in the sixties. They established a pirate radio station offshore so the youth could listen to what they wanted, and not what the government told them they could listen to. You have to be careful when you get too regulatory, because the youth.... I remember the radical youth I was involved with. We went around the rules and government in any way that we could.
That puts us in the place of this: as technology has exploded, what existed 10 years ago is out of date. How do we write legislation for the future? That's what you're asking for: how to be flexible. You're saying that we need to do it, and I'm asking, how? What are you telling us that we need to write? How can you write regulations that are not regulations? How do you write flexible, general regulations that can be applicable in any case, and non-device oriented? How do you do that?
On the radio issue, the CRTC, as you probably noticed, issued a very important report last week. On the radio issue it's saying—and it's what we've been saying for many, many years—that the radio industry is still the most resilient medium so far. If you read it, you will notice it's clear that radio stations have not had big increases, but at least they didn't fall at all. It means that if they still make as much money as they do, it's because people are listening.
I totally agree with you that the way of listening to music is changing. At the same time, we've done some surveys at l'ADISQ in Quebec and in francophone Canada, and that's not what we've collected. People, even young people, have diversified their ways of listening to music. They listen to music from radio: 30% of them say that they listen to the radio at least every day, but at the same time, they use streaming, they used iPods, they use other things. I totally agree with you that they've diversified, but at the same time, there's a problem here and you can fix it, so fix it.
At the same time, there's another problem. What we have been asking you is to have, as much as possible, an act that is technologically neutral. It's possible. You know, you have very expert writers of legislation and they will show you how to do so. It's possible to do so. At the same time, it's not because the world will be changing again that it's not important to fix the problem. You can fix it today. That's why this $1.25 million exemption has been a problem since the beginning, I would say.
I was there in 1997 and 1998 when this exemption was put in place, and when we had the neighbouring rights regime put in place—hopefully. At that time it made sense because the radio industry was in a bad position. In 1995-1996, that was true. Let's at least be truthful. We had to have that bill pass, and it was a deal with the radio industry. Let's say that, “We will give you an exemption”, but now this exemption is no longer important and we have to get rid of it. If you can do it, do it.
For the future, we'll tell you how to write the act to be technologically neutral. It's totally feasible to do so.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses. Their testimony was very eloquent.
I think the most eloquent of all, and the most crucially important for every one of us, was that of Ms. Doyle, which I found very moving.
This is a situation to which I have devoted nearly seven years of my political life. Ms. Doyle is an artist who has come to tell us she can no longer earn a living from her work. Everyone of us—and I have no doubts about everyone's good faith—everyone must let that sink in. That's why we're here. We are the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are here to ensure that our heritage stays alive for future generations.
I appreciate the good faith of my colleague Mr. Shields, who asks questions about radio. Incidentally, I invite him to check La Presse+, which we're discussing a lot, to learn about the not-for-profit structure model organized with the federal government by the officers of that media player so they can find a way to survive, since the government's doing nothing.
There's an article that claims the radio industry is doing very well. I think we can take it for granted that this exemption should be lowered to zero. It's a temporary measure, and I don't think the people at Bell, in Toronto, who wear clothes worth $8,000 need any help. I think it's Ms. Doyle who needs help in paying her early childhood centre, or ECC, and for education services for her children, as do all Canadians who have a job, who love that job, and who contribute to society.
I think the document you've submitted as a group, as a coalition, demonstrates its own value since everyone has signed it and everyone agrees on the major points.
Do you think every one of these recommendations stands a chance of being well received and interpreted by a committee such as ours? I'm sorry the committee isn't an ad hoc committee struck specifically to study the issue. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology have been assigned that task. I think that's troubling.
Let me ask you this: don't you think it would be interesting—I know I'm completely ignoring the committee's rules here—to prepare an interim report. We've started a process that will take several months. We'll be leaving for the summer, we'll take a break, and we'll lie out on the sand instead of drinking the glasses of sand that the copyright review represents. The fact is that, for everyone here, even for me—Ms. Drouin was explaining to me how well acquainted I am with these issues, which leaves me very emotional—this is very dry and very complex. Everyone here is wondering who does what. What are SOCAN and Re:Sound? Everyone of us thinks this is a very complicated issue. It's complicated, but it's extremely important. I think Ms. Doyle's testimony is distressing.
I'm going to take a break and let someone else speak, but, before doing that, I would like to raise a point. Would you have liked the Conservatives from Quebec to ask you a question? Here we have representatives from the Union des artistes du Québec and the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo.
It would be good to hear the Conservatives talk about culture. Would you have liked Mr. Bernier ask you a question?
Yes. I'll even use this document as a reference. It's the test that states the following three principles. First, where exceptions are introduced into the act, they must be limited to certain special cases. In 2012, a range of exceptions were introduced into the act. So that couldn't be limited to special cases. There is a limit. If 40 exceptions are introduced, there are definitely not 40 special situations.
Second, a reproduction must not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or of any other object of copyright.
Lastly, it must not unreasonably prejudice the creator's legitimate interests. Here's a specific example. In 2012, since the private copying system applied to blank CDs, it was felt that would give people the option of reproducing music on any other device. However, no provision was made for financial compensation for the creators, although that necessarily caused unreasonable prejudice to their interests. All these copies have a value. If that were not the case, people wouldn't make them. It would be fair for creators to benefit from that value.
All these aspects of the three-step test were recently scrutinized in a study by Mr. Mihály Ficsor, a world-renowned copyright expert. Mr. Ficsor examined the Canadian exceptions, particularly those that had been introduced into the act and that were related to education or to anything pertaining to literary works, and concluded that they did not meet the test requirements. Furthermore, as a result of the massive introduction of exceptions into the Copyright Act, the international community has recently raised many questions about Canada.
In May 2017, the Association littéraire et artistique internationale, or ALAI, which was founded by none other than Victor Hugo in 1878 and whose membership includes numerous legal experts, professors, and authorities in the copyright field, expressed a wish to the Canadian government. Having noted the many exceptions in the Copyright Act, it said it hoped that the number of free exceptions would decline when the act was revised. There may be exceptions, but they must provide for compensation for creators.
For those who are interested, I have here some English and French copies of the text expressing ALAI's wish. I could submit a copy to you if you wish.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Madam Chair and colleagues, thank you for inviting me, once again, to speak before you.
I am accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Graham Flack, the Associate Deputy Minister, Ms. Guylaine Roy, and the Chief Financial Officer of the department, Mr. Andrew Francis.
I want to congratulate you for the high quality of your work and to thank you for having launched, in April, a study on models of remuneration for artists and creators in the context of copyright law. Your advice will be important in the context of this parliamentary review, an essential tool in ensuring that our artists and creators are fairly remunerated for their work.
It's a pleasure to speak to you today about some planned expenditures for Canadian Heritage and its portfolio agencies in the 2018-19 main estimates. That, of course, is why I am here.
Prior to speaking about the estimates, I would like to take a moment to highlight an important announcement that the and I made earlier this week. On June 5, our government announced a process for reviewing the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act, and the Radiocommunication Act.
Our creative industries are a massive economic driver, and they employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians. That's why we have invested massively to support our sector, or, more precisely, $3.2 billion since forming government. That's the most in the G7.
Why are we doing this? Simply put, this legislation has not been reviewed since 1991. That's before the Internet was in our homes and before smart phones hit the market. Since then, new players have entered the market and our system has been disrupted.
My starting point for the modernization of these statutes and my message to all the people working in the Internet field are clear: there will be no free passes. At the same time, we are going to ensure that we do not increase costs for Canadians. We have established this panel of experts to define the outlines of the future act. I have full confidence in the ability of this expert panel, chaired by Ms. Janet Yale. I am sure it will come up with relevant recommendations in the context of this review.
With respect to the estimates, Canadian Heritage is asking for $1.3 billion, represented by around $1.1 billion in grants and contributions and $186.3 million in operations. $105 million could be added to this amount, as planned in the 2018 federal budget. We would like to invest this $105 million in particular toward official languages, Canadian content, local journalism, and multiculturalism.
The 2018-19 main estimates represent a net decrease of $133.9 million compared to last year. This decrease is partly due to the end of the Canada 150 initiative, which represents a drop of $117.54 million in funding.
Allow me a moment to say what an exciting year it was for Canadians coast to coast to coast, as we celebrated 150 years of Confederation. Whether it was on Parliament Hill for July 1, aboard the majestic Canada C3, or in communities large and small across the country, more than 31 million Canadians participated in this special year.
The decrease is also caused by the end of the $84.2 million in time-limited funding announced in budget 2016 and invested in the Canada cultural spaces fund.
That being said, our government is putting an even stronger emphasis on arts and culture than before, because they reflect the values and identities that make us Canadian.
Canada's strength lies in its diversity. And more than ever, our country must be able to make the plurality of its voices heard—at home, abroad and in the digital domain. That's why, last September, I unveiled our government's vision for a Creative Canada. It is a vision anchored in our diversity and focused on the talent of our creators.
As a result, we continue to invest heavily in our cultural and heritage institutions across the country through the Canada cultural spaces fund. This year, we are beginning to invest an additional $300 million over 10 years, as announced in our 2017 budget, which represents a new envelope of $29.9 million for 2018-19 in the main estimates.
We are also investing an additional $172 million into the Canada media fund to ensure that we have a sustainable protection sector for creators. Also, we are allocating $125 million over five years to Canada's first-ever creative export strategy so that our creators and creative industries can be promoted and supported internationally. This amount will be reflected in future main and supplementary estimates of Canadian Heritage.
No relationship is more important than our relationship with indigenous peoples. In addition, budget 2017 provided $89.9 million over three years to support indigenous languages and cultures, and increased support for the aboriginal languages initiative: $69 million for Canadian Heritage, $14.9 million for Library and Archives Canada, and $6 million for National Research Council Canada. An amount of $22.6 million is included in these main estimates.
We are also continuing our commitment to enact legislation on first nations, Inuit and Métis languages.
We are also dedicated to creating jobs for young people. Budget 2017 proposes $395.5 million in new funding over three years for the youth employment strategy, beginning in 2017-18. Of these funds, over three years $17 million will go to Canadian Heritage for initiatives that will increase new job opportunities for young people in the heritage sector. These summer jobs and long-term paid internships will give students and new graduates meaningful work experience in both English and French. An increase of $7 million is included in the main estimates of 2018-19.
With respect to grants and contributions—and in the wake of the "Me too" movement—our government has taken action against workplace harassment because everyone has a right to feel safe at work.
On this issue, artists have been at the forefront of social change by leading the charge to let people know that harassment of any kind is unacceptable. In fact, I wish to thank this committee for their important work on the issue of gender balance on the boards of arts organizations. Following our joint announcement with the Canada Council for the Arts, in order to secure our financial support, arts and culture organizations will now have to make a formal commitment to building a workplace that is free from all forms of harassment, abuse, and discrimination. It is a measure that I hold very close to my heart and one that gives hope to survivors.
I now come to the expenses of the numerous organizations in the Canadian Heritage portfolio.
The 2018-19 main estimates foresee $2.2 billion in expenses, representing a decrease of $131 million from the 2017-18 main estimates. This decrease is due to the completion of the Museum of Science and Technology's renovation and the National Arts Centre's modernization.
Our museums and other heritage institutions are places of inspiration for Canadians. They showcase our cultural landmarks, highlight our shared memory and attract visitors to our regions. That's why we are pleased to request $35 million over five years, starting this year, for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in Winnipeg. This institution plays an important role for our democracy and our social cohesion, as it promotes respect for each other and encourages reflection and dialogue.
But there is more: we intend to support the construction and operation of the new shared premises for Library and Archives Canada and the Ottawa Public Library. We want to invest $73.3 million in this project over six years, starting in 2018-19, and $4 million per year thereafter.
Madam Chair and distinguished committee members, thank you for your attention. I am now ready to answer questions.
There are a number of things here. As you know, our government has decided to invest massively in infrastructure because that will enable us to meet citizens' needs by providing them with access to better infrastructure and to create an economic stimulus that will have an impact on all sectors of our economy.
Our infrastructure investments include investments in cultural infrastructure. As I just mentioned, they will represent $30 million more per year in addition to a basic budget of $25 million, for a total of $55 million a year over 10 years.
With regard to cultural policy, which we announced last September, I have set aside a portion of the funding to support creative centres across the country. We are thinking, in particular, of the Société des arts technologiques, or SAT, in Quebec, and the Artscape Daniels Launchpad in Toronto, not to mention other centres in Vancouver.
Here are a few of the infrastructure projects we have funded in the past two years: the Inuit Art Centre in Winnipeg, Espace Go in Montreal, Place des arts du Grand Sudbury, Arts Umbrella in Vancouver, Théâtre Palace Arvida in my colleague's magnificent Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, and Espace René-Lévesque in Gaspésie. These are examples of cultural infrastructure projects that we have funded out of our budget and new allocated funding.
There are definitely other ways to fund cultural infrastructure in Canada, including through federal-provincial agreements, budgets that existed and that we have spent, and the new infrastructure program that was developed by my colleague Amarjeet Sohi, the Minister for Infrastructure and Communities. As for infrastructure projects funded under federal-provincial agreements, I'm thinking in particular of the Musée d'art contemporain de Montreal and the Théâtre Le Diamant in Quebec City.