Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Communications
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 3, 1999
[English]
The Subcommittee on Communications of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 3:40 p.m. to study Canada's international competitive position in communications generally, including a review of the economic, social and cultural importance of communications for Canada.
Senator Marie-P. Poulin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much for accepting our invitation and for expressing an interest in the topic currently being examined by the committee, namely Canada's international competitive position in communications generally, including a review of the economic, social and cultural importance of communications for Canada.
[English]
As you know, we tabled a first report about a year ago. In our first report, we really wanted to look at this question from four points of view -- the technological, human resources, economic and cultural points of view.
We realized after listening to many interesting witnesses, and it was repeatedly told to us, that the issue of content would override all the issues of delivery. We are particularly pleased to have you before us.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Valiquette, President, SOCAN: I am an author and composer, as well as the President of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, better known as SOCAN. With me is Paul Spurgeon, SOCAN's General Counsel.
Before we proceed to discuss new media, I would like briefly to introduce our organization to you. SOCAN is a not-for-profit Canadian society of composers, lyricists,,songwriters and publishers of musical works from Canada and around the world.
On behalf of our over 18,000 active members and the members of our international affiliates, we administer performing rights in respect of words and music.
Performing rights give copyright owners of musical works the sole right to perform in public or broadcast their works, or to authorize others to do so in return for royalty payments. In other words, copyright amounts to the artist's salary. Since we too are creators of Canadian content, we are keenly interested in the Broadcasting Act and in the CRTC's Canadian content rules.
SOCAN actively participated in the recent CRTC review of policies respecting commercial radio, television and new media. We are quite satisfied with the new CRTC regulations governing commercial radio which came into effect early this year. We feel confident that these new regulations favour Canadian creators and we believe the CRTC should monitor the effects of the regulations over the next five years before undertaking another review.
With respect to the television industry, we are very hopeful that the new policy which the CRTC is set to announce sometime this year will consolidate the regulatory framework as it applies to Canadian content.
During the remainder of today's presentation, we would like to explain to you how we perceive the CRTC new media review, following which we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
As we understand it, your subcommittee's review of Canada's competitive position internationally focussed on the Internet and on new media. For instance, last October, your committee heard from representatives of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, or CAIP, and from others who talked about the Internet.
On November 17 last, SOCAN sent a letter to your subcommittee in which it rejected CAIP's argument that the Internet cannot and must not be regulated.
You have also received two submissions from us concerning the CRTC new media review. As you may also know, SOCAN filed an Internet tariff application with the Copyright Board with a view to ensuring that our members receive royalties when their works are communicated over the Internet. As this seems to be occurring with growing frequency, we are pleased to have this opportunity to share with you our ideas on this important issue.
Today, we would like to focus on two issues. First, I will broach the question of whether or not the CRTC should regulate the Internet. Secondly, Paul Spurgeon will examine how the CRTC should apply Canadian content production and exhibition requirements as we prepare to usher in the new millennium.
Before I go any further, I would like to draw an important distinction at this time between media and content, to avoid any possible confusion later on.
By media we mean the means by which the content is communicated. In our view, this new media inquiry should focus primarily on the new means by which our members' musical works and other forms of content are presently delivered. This includes digital delivery networks like the Internet.
The main point I wish to make today is that while the media may have changed, this does not mean that the CRTC should automatically abandon its content regulations. As you know, the new media already communicate music and other forms of content to Canadians. Unfortunately, a number of new media services do not consider themselves bound, as all other broadcasters in Canada are, by the Broadcasting Act and the statutory requirement that they make maximum use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming.
SOCAN believes that this lack of regulation of new media dilutes the CRTC's effectiveness and creates two classes of broadcasters: those who are subject to Parliament's policies, and those who are not. We submit that to the extent new media are broadcasting our members' musical works and other programming to the public, they should be bound by the Broadcasting Act and CRTC licensing conditions and regulations should apply.
Rogers Communications is now using its cable to provide Internet access to Canadians through its new service Rogers@home.
The CRTC already licenses Rogers Cable and other cable operators to communicate programming to the public, as does SOCAN in the case of musical contents communicated by these companies.
There is no reason why Rogers@home, which broadcasts programming, should not be bound by Parliament's laws and regulations. Some will argue, however, that neither Parliament nor the CRTC has a role to play in regulating new media, simply because the Internet does not recognize national boundaries or traditional jurisdictions. SOCAN has a very different view of the situation.
For starters, we disagree that Parliament and the CRTC should abdicate their responsibilities when confronted by the challenges of new technologies. For nearly 70 years now, SOCAN has been adapting to technological and jurisdictional changes. It knows from experience that it is possible to adapt. Music, like the Internet, is a cutting-edge industry which has never respected national borders. To meet the challenges it faces, SOCAN has been working with performing rights societies around the world to develop a system comprised of several components, including Canadian law, international treaties, and a network of reciprocal agreements between national and international associations.
When Industry Minister John Manley welcomed participants to last October's OECD meeting on electronic commerce, he and his colleagues were not content to state that because the Internet was not currently regulated, this meant it was impossible to tax this medium. On the contrary, they agreed to work together to develop new innovative ways of adapting current policies to new realities.
The same approach is being taken today in an effort to find ways of regulating pornography, hate literature and other offensive material on the Internet. That is why SOCAN is urging the CRTC to continue regulating contents currently transmitted to the public, regardless of the transmission conduits used.
I will now turn the floor over to Paul Spurgeon, SOCAN's General Counsel, who will explain to you why new media should be subject to Canadian content production and exhibition requirements.
[English]
Mr. Paul Spurgeon, General Counsel, SOCAN: I should like to respond to questions the CRTC raised in the public notice regarding Canadian content. In particular, I would like to focus on the following two questions. First, how do we promote the development and production of Canadian content? Second, how do we ensure that Canadian content has access to the new media?
The CRTC has several policies to promote the development and production of Canadian content. For example, radio and television broadcasters make financial contributions to the production of Canadian content when they broadcast programming to Canadians over the air or by cable. We believe that when new media generates advertising revenues by transmitting programs to Canadians, they, too, should contribute to Canadian content production funds. These contributions will promote the development of Canadian content, which in turn will attract Canadian audiences, generate advertising revenues, and further the development of the new media and other industries. We recognize the necessity to define the requirements of what is to be considered "Canadian" for funding and support purposes. As is the case with the current television production support programs, criteria must be developed to promote Canadian cultural and industrial objectives. These criteria should reflect the fact that the role of music and other content in new media are at least as important as they are in traditional broadcasting. However, it is not sufficient to merely promote the production of Canadian content. Second, we must also promote the exhibition of Canadian content and ensure that it has shelf space located where Canadians can access it. SOCAN believes that both distribution channels and the growing number of content aggregators must allocate some of their shelf space to Canadian content. In addition, the shelf space should not be located at the back of the store where no one could find it. Instead, it must be "front-rack" -- to use a term from the music business -- to ensure that it is accessible to all Canadians. The best way to ensure that this shelf space exists is to apply Canadian content exhibition requirements to new media, like the Internet. In the past, Canadian content rules have been an effective policy instrument and we believe that they have an important role to play in the future. As Gilles said, the CRTC's new commercial radio policy contains a renewed commitment to Canadian content. SOCAN shares this commitment and we have urged the CRTC to pursue it in their new media review. The bottom line is that Canadians must continue to have the right to choose to see and hear the creative work and expression of their fellow citizens.
Second, we must also promote the exhibition of Canadian content and ensure that it has shelf space located where Canadians can access it. SOCAN believes that both distribution channels and the growing number of content aggregators must allocate some of their shelf space to Canadian content. In addition, the shelf space should not be located at the back of the store where no one could find it. Instead, it must be "front-rack" -- to use a term from the music business -- to ensure that it is accessible to all Canadians. The best way to ensure that this shelf space exists is to apply Canadian content exhibition requirements to new media, like the Internet. In the past, Canadian content rules have been an effective policy instrument and we believe that they have an important role to play in the future. As Gilles said, the CRTC's new commercial radio policy contains a renewed commitment to Canadian content. SOCAN shares this commitment and we have urged the CRTC to pursue it in their new media review. The bottom line is that Canadians must continue to have the right to choose to see and hear the creative work and expression of their fellow citizens.
As Gilles said, the CRTC's new commercial radio policy contains a renewed commitment to Canadian content. SOCAN shares this commitment and we have urged the CRTC to pursue it in their new media review. The bottom line is that Canadians must continue to have the right to choose to see and hear the creative work and expression of their fellow citizens.
The Chairman: Both of you used expressions that go to the heart of some of the discussions that we have had in this committee over the last months. One of those discussions was about copyright being the salary of writers and artists using their creativity, time and their own resources to give life to new technology. You are speaking to very receptive senators.
Senator Johnson: In your submission to the CRTC about new media hearings, you argue that Canadian content requirements should apply to the new media, such as the Internet. How would such requirements be applied to it?
Mr. Spurgeon: Do you mean how it could technically be done, or in law?
Senator Johnson: Yes, the technical side of it.
Mr. Spurgeon: We believe that the law supports regulation -- that is outlined in our brief. From a practical or technical point of view, I could not say it any better than an article that appeared in The Financial Post on 1 December 1998. I could make this article available to the clerk. It supports regulation of the Internet. The article is called, "Now's the time to regulate the Internet" and the author, a professor from the University of British Columbia, provides some excellent reasons why practically or technically this media can be regulated. Some argue that it is a new media and that therefore it cannot be regulated, but this professor argues that "claims that it's too young are poppycock." He addresses the age issue, and asks whether the digerati are right. Is it technically impossible to regulate the Internet?
I think that is perhaps what you are getting at, the practical aspects. He continues:
If true, that would make other arguments moot. Proponents of this view argue the Internet grows and changes so quickly that regulators could never keep up with every new website, and that the Internet routes around would-be screening devices.
While that is superficially true, it is also misleading. It makes little sense in an Internet world to control what "programming" Canadians produce -- no more sense than walling your country's harbours in hopes that others will do the same... But it is possible to control what programming most Canadians see. There are many widely available tools, like SurfWatch and NetNanny, that prevent minors from viewing pornography. It is easy to imagine extending these filtering tools to hate literature, for example, or conversely, giving "Made in Canada" pages special prominence in search tools.
That is a practical example of a technical explanation of how a content regulation or mechanism could work. That is just one example, and I think there are many others.
I do not know whether that gives you a partial answer to your question, but certainly that is an excellent explanation of how it can be done.
The Chairman: Do you feel, Mr. Spurgeon, that it could be the same regulator as now exists for the current media and broadcasters?
Mr. Spurgeon: I see no reason why it could not. This was the thrust of our CRTC submission.
The idea behind governments passing legislation is to make things technology-neutral so that the impact of technology does not change the principles that we are here to uphold. In terms of the Internet, our view is that if someone uses a television to listen to music, watch a movie, listen to the radio or some other little gizmo that they turn on, it should not matter what the gizmo is. The way the content is delivered is irrelevant to the fact that it is a broadcast.
We kept referring to a duck. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. The fact that it happens to be the Internet or a fancy new computer does not change things because people still want to access the content.
The CRTC is now doing an excellent job, in our view, ensuring that broadcasters and others are regulated in a way that is best for all Canadians, and I believe Canadians agree.
The Internet is no different because it is simply delivering that same content, albeit by different means. That is what Mr. Valiquette was referring to earlier when he mentioned keeping the means separate from the content.
Senator Johnson: Therefore, it is broadcasting and it should be regulated. That is your essential argument.
Mr. Spurgeon: That is right. If it is not broadcasting, it will not be regulated. We are not interested in regulating e-mail, for example.
Many people look at the Internet and do not have a clear idea of what it is. There are three old markets with which the Internet is involved. We know that we can order a book or a record from Amazon.com, and they will deliver the physical copy of the book to your home.
Senator Johnson: I did that the other day. I could not believe it. It was great.
Mr. Spurgeon: That is a good example of catalogue shopping. It is replacing retail. The old retail market is still there, but it exists in a different way.
Another market is the download market, with which the music industry is concerned, where someone sells a digital copy of a recording or a movie. One simply orders it, not unlike what you did, but it is delivered electronically to your house. That is the second market.
The other old market is the broadcast market. That is what we call the listen-and-watch market. That is the area in which SOCAN is primarily involved because we license broadcasters. People listen to the radio and watch television and movies. When convergence ultimately happens -- when the Internet, television and radio become melded -- that old market will be provided for by the new technology, which is the Internet.
However, we still have these old markets. Senator Johnson was involved in retail sales by shopping on the Internet and by having something tangible delivered to him.
Instead of going to a record store, one will download a digital copy over the Internet. Again, the other market would be the traditional broadcast market or listen-and-watch market. However, one is still dealing with the same thing.
Senator Johnson: How do we regulate Web-based music?
Mr. Spurgeon: We have outlined in our brief how we would do that. We see the various kinds of Web sites that provide music in Canada as being no different than any other music provider that is subject to content rules to varying degrees, depending on what they are doing. There is no difference there.
We also look at the cable companies. As Mr. Valiquette mentioned, Rogers delivers an Internet service. It is not unlike what they already do for cable. When you go home and use Shaw, Rogers or Vidéotron, you are delivered a package of things. It is like what we call an intranet. You pay a monthly fee to get cable. When you belong to Rogers, they charge you a monthly fee to access this intranet. It is not the Internet. You need a key to get in and you pay for it.
What is so different about that? There are differences, but for the most part, these media options are very similar to existing satellite services, cable services and broadcasters. Web sites are very similar to broadcasters that currently broadcast radio services to people.
Senator Johnson: Are you pleased with the way things are going with the CRTC review?
Mr. Spurgeon: Generally, the CRTC is doing a comprehensive job of reviewing all the matters before it. We have appeared before the CRTC on a number of occasions since the last round of appointments. They are doing a very thorough job.
Senator Johnson: Do you expect to make any more submissions? How many have you made now?
Mr. Spurgeon: We have made several presentations. We have made presentations on television and on radio. The one on radio was before the previous commission, which was comprised of different members. I believe the new media issue is pretty well over now.
Senator Johnson: With technology the way it is, it is a work in progress.
Mr. Spurgeon: That is true, but that does not deny the need for regulation.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Valiquette, we have had the opportunity to meet with societies similar to yours in Europe. One of the things we heard from them was that old media players were strategically positioned to become new media players, given their experience, quality and creativity. Would you care to comment on this?
Mr. Valiquette: In the field of the arts, creating a work is one process, while interpreting this work is another endeavour. Luc Plamondon is the lyricist, while Céline Dion is the performer.
We are concerned about the people who create these works. Pursuant to our agreement with SOCAN, we are entitled to receive a royalty when our works are used. That is important to note. When we hire an electrician or plumber, we receive a bill which includes the service call, plus a charge based on the number of hours worked. However, when we create a musical work, whether it takes us three hours, three days or three months, we do not receive a penny up front. We put a great deal of effort into the creative process and hope and pray that a performer selects our work and someone will produce it. The day when that work is performed on radio or television or in concert is the day the creator is entitled to some form of remuneration.
As far as we are concerned, the new media and the Internet are just another new means of using and communicating our works. Instead of dealing with concert or record producers, we now find ourselves having to do business with people involved in these new media for commercial reasons.
We want to be adequately compensated for our efforts. If the system is changed so that the creator is not entitled to be compensated when his works are used by these new media, then the creative process will be thwarted and a result, our country's culture will be directly impacted. We will no longer have anything to reflect our true identity. The fundamental question here is whether Canadian society really and truly values culture.
To answer your question as to who should be responsible for overseeing this process, let me just say that aside from my artistic pursuits in Montreal, I operate a small business by the name of Musitechnique. Fifteen years ago, we created a computer-assisted sound design program. In our industry, we are often the victims of bad timing, but in this case, we were in the right place at the right time. We have witnessed the emergence of CD-ROM, Internet and now MP-3 technology.
As I see it, it is difficult to cut the cake evenly. Admittedly, there is often some advantage to doing business in the short term with people from the television or film industry. We have grown accustomed to juggling image, sound and transmission in order to bring our product to the public. Rules are already in place to govern this process. We are trying to adapt this rules to the new reality and there may be some benefits associated with the process.
I have always maintained that with the new media, where text conveys an idea or an image, the component that introduces feeling and emotion is music. If our creative works were without any kind of emotion, than people would not be touched by them. We view ourselves as an essential part of the process. Many of those involved in the new media have trouble grasping this reality, but I submit that the most competitive among them are beginning to understand.
Given that multimedia creation involves many components -- image, telecommunications, music and so forth -- we believe in a parallel process, that is we believe music creators should be acknowledged for their efforts, just as the people responsible for the image are. We are parallel creative components. This would allow for genuine interaction between the different components, something which is not happening now. I think that is where the future lies.
It does not matter how we do this, because ultimately, we will have a product, to use the industry's term, that will be artistic, cultural and, above all, interactive. There is nothing more interactive than a concert, for example. Regardless of which side of the issue we happen to be on, it is important to remember that the music industry has always been closely associated with new technologies.
For instance, when the piano was first invented, it was considered an absolutely crazy contraption. Yet, it has become a very human instrument. If it were not for the electric guitar, there would be no rock and roll. If it were not for the synthesizer, there would be no new age music. I think the music industry has been a good testing ground for these new technologies. If we can succeed in using these tools, often called robots, to convey emotions, then it is easy to adopt them to all sectors of activities in our profession and in society.
My answer to your question would have to be yes, in the short term. Clearly, people involved in new media can accommodate us, but I would not stop there. Creators are one of Canada's natural resources. I sincerely believe that down the road, they will be a source of economic wealth. Quebec has a phenomenal pool of creative talent, unparalleled in the world. It is up to us to channel our energy and sell Canada to the world. When our artists are successful abroad, the benefits are felt at all levels here at home. If we want this to work, we must ensure that creators are compensated for their work. We must recognize the value of their work because if we do not, we will be passing up a great opportunity.
Many people are afraid of change, and new technologies are part of this process. We believe that new technologies mean new opportunities. We may have suffered in the past because we were confined to markets defined by outsiders. Now we have an opportunity to democratize this process, but first, we need a workable framework in place. We need regulations to ensure that our artists will be heard and more importantly, that the Canadian public will have access to their works and that all those involved will be fairly compensated for their efforts.
The Chairman: How many members does SOCAN have?
Mr. Valiquette: We have approximately 18,000 active members, but we must not underestimate the fact that we represent creators around the world. Name your favourite creators and we represent them.
The Chairman: Of your 18,000 active members, do you have some idea of how many of them have had their works broadcast through the new media?
Mr. Valiquette: We do not really have any statistics on this.
[English]
Mr. Spurgeon: We do not have any statistics. We know that many serious composers were into new technology many years ago, and, as the rest of the world got caught up with it, the pop musicians became involved. Although I cannot give you any statistics, I would say that most musicians are computer literate. A lot of them owned Mac computers that allow them to make recordings digitally, help them compose and with their recording sessions.
[Translation]
Mr. Valiquette: Our organization in Montreal often speaks of the traditional sectors of our industry where activity has fallen off. I am referring to the performance side of things, but rarely is there talk of new opportunities that present themselves to musicians. Take, for example, a corporation like Hydro Quebec which usually sends 300 of its employees on a weekend training seminar in the Laurentians. This year, the corporation decided to do something different. Why not produce a CD-Rom, since everyone has a computer at home and perhaps this would be more entertaining. Someone was put in charge of this project. A screenplay had to be written, a narrator found and sound details attended to, to ensure the entertainment value of the production. I would have to say that a new clientele is emerging for musicians. A growing number of my colleagues are working in areas such as this. Creating web pages is quite a popular trend these days, but this task requires sound and composers. We are making inroads. Soon, we will have some statistics to consider, but I can tell you already that our members are working in these fields every day.
The Chairman: As I recall, the CRTC stipulates that Canadian content must account for 35 per cent of radio programming.
Mr. Valiquette: Of English programming, yes.
The Chairman: And what of French programming.
Mr. Valiquette: The standard is 65 per cent Canadian content.
The Chairman: So, 65 per cent in French, and 35 per cent in English. How will Canadian content be defined in terms of the new media?
[English]
Mr. Spurgeon: As I indicated earlier, with respect to radio broadcasting, 35 per cent is the general rate of application, but not all rates are 35 per cent. There are different rates for ethnic radio stations and classical stations. Even the border stations have different rates. Thirty-five per cent is the general rule, but it is not by any means applicable in every case. In Quebec, in French- language stations, it is 65 per cent. It is different for the CBC, as you probably know.
For the new media, it would conceivably be the same. If it is a CBC broadcaster-converged Internet, or if it is a classical Internet station, or whatever, it should be treated the same as a regular broadcaster. It would be the same in our view. The same rules should apply if, for all intents and purposes, the person doing the broadcasting is the same as the conventional broadcaster. There should be no difference.
Senator Johnson: Many argue that the Internet is fundamentally different from traditional broadcasting because its network is not on Canadian soil, so it would not constitute a sizable asset. If the CRTC attempts to regulate the Internet, would a grey market not develop, in terms of a satellite market?
Mr. Spurgeon: Let me see if I understand your question.
Senator Johnson: Your answers have been based on broadcasting in the traditional context. But if we are not in Canada, but we are regulating the Internet, would not a market form?
Mr. Spurgeon: I will draw an analogy to how we hope to license copyright on the Internet. We want to license the entry that is closest to home, the Internet access provider, the intranet. In other words, it would be the Rogers@home service. These people are carrying on business in Canada, providing content. It does not matter whether you call it multi-media. These people are carrying on the business of delivering content to Canadians.
We have seen, with cable, that they are "regulatable" -- that has proved to be not a big problem. There are more and more satellites with multi-point distribution systems to peoples' homes without cable that are regulated, as are new services like Look TV. You have probably heard about those.
It is similar in that way. There are differences in the technical means, I do not disagree. But in other ways it is very similar. We feel that if a Rogers@home system, or some other system, delivering this kind of content to Canadians, conducts business in Canada, we can look at them. We can regulate them. Certainly for purposes of copyright protection, we can license them. They are infringing copyright in this country. It is not a "no law land," as one of my colleagues in the legal profession says. You cannot defame a person just because it is the Internet. You cannot put child pornography on the Internet just because it is the Internet. There are laws against that and the same applies to regulation. There are laws to regulate existing broadcasters. In our view, the Internet is just like that.
Senator Johnson: The Canadian music industry is doing brilliantly in the world. At the Grammys, four Canadian women were voted the most outstanding singers in the world. When did your association start?
Mr. Spurgeon: We began representing artists in 1925, inspired by the British. The Americans and French were involved in it in the 1940s, but it finally became fully Canadian. There was another society called BMI Canada, which was an American sister society, which existed at the same time in the 1940s. There was no need to have two. We merged in 1990 to form SOCAN.
The business of collectively licensing copyright in this country has existed since 1925. The business of licensing music collectively, blanket-licensing musical work, has gone on since 1850.
It began in France in 1850 when a composer was in a restaurant having dinner with a friend and watching a floor show. In the floor show, they played one of his tunes. When the waiter came with the bill for his meal, he refused to pay it. When the waiter questioned him as to why he would not pay the bill as he had eaten the food, the composer said that they had played his tune and he did not get any money for it. The waiter called the manager and the restaurant sued the composer for the cost of the food. The composer won the case on the basis that the restaurant infringed his rights by playing his song. That resulted in the formation of the world's first performing rights society for musical works.
After that, a number of societies formed throughout Europe. They reached Canada and the United States in 1925. Since that time, we have collectively administered copyright. Since Bill C-60, we have even more copyright collectives. We have retransmission collectives. We have CanCopy for making photocopies. We have a new collective for the electronic rights of writers, who are concerned about their newspaper articles being on the Internet. We have copyright collectors for visual artists. I have a new one for performers and record companies.
Given the need for clear rights on a collective basis, the government has recognized that these associations are critical. They are important; not only for the people who own them and run them, but also for the users who need access to the works that they produce.
Senator Johnson: Has this not contributed to the tremendous success that the music industry is enjoying today, with government support as well?
Mr. Spurgeon: That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Valiquette: I would like to add, as a creator, that the performing right that SOCAN collects is the most important right for creators. It is excessively difficult to earn a living today, just creating. The only cheque we often see is the one that comes from SOCAN. It goes directly to the creator. It does not go through the hands of some administrator somewhere. That counts a lot for the writers.
Its members -- lyricists and composers -- own this organization. The future of this organization is directly tied to what the government decides in terms of rules, of a framework, for Canadian content. If we do not have a workable framework there, we, SOCAN, cannot exist. And I will tell you, our creators will not survive. It is a very important, sensitive thing we have here. We are not just one other association. We are not just another company.
Senator Johnson: I know that and I agree with you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: When you discussed this with your international counterparts, did you adopt an international position on the regulatory issue?
[English]
Mr. Spurgeon: Absolutely. We are a member of an organization called CISAC, the International Confederation of Authors Societies. It is a French acronym. It is headquartered in Paris, because that is where it all started. It is an organization comprised of all the collective societies of creators from all countries. A few Arabic countries do not have them, but every other country in the world has a performing rights society like ours. Often they will have visual arts, plastic arts societies, societies for performers and record companies as well. We have gotten together on an international level to discuss the issue of the Internet.
It is a difficult question. Different countries have different approaches to licensing and copyright. The United States has a unique approach, as they often do. They are often in aberration and out of step with the rest of the world, for whatever reason. However, every country in the world is studying this right now. We meet to discuss the best way to license copyright, and how the conflict of laws is resolved when you have conflicting claims, for example, when you have a site in this country, transmitted to a satellite here and then to this country and then this country by cable. How do we sort this out? We have been doing this since the late 1800s, and we have international networks in place. Since 1925 we have been paying France and Germany, but they also pay us. The money goes back and forth. Our members are now making more money for their performances outside the country than inside the country. This is a terrific thing. It is the result of what you were saying earlier; the success of Canadian content, which acts as a springboard and catapults these performers into the world's spotlight, has helped us increase the royalties flowing back into the country. We have this network, which has worked well for over 100 years and we hope to continue it with the Internet issues.
The Chairman: Do you have any additional comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Valiquette: I was fortunate enough to attend several of these international meetings. Generally speaking, creators who get together from around the world have more or less the same concerns. I would be proud to see Canada exercise some leadership in this area and to set an example for other countries to follow. We are essentially a young country and supposedly it is easier for us to adapt. I see no reason to hold off. Canada could leave the creators of this world an even greater legacy.
The Chairman: When you say you would like Canada to exercise some leadership and that current legislation is well drafted, was would you like to see in the short term as the next step in the process?
Mr. Valiquette: Generally speaking, it is true that we have sound laws in place. Often the application of these laws is called into question because in our society, the concept of intellectual property is more abstract than the concept of physical ownership. The important thing is to apply the laws we already have, perhaps a little more stringently, to new technologies and most importantly, to properly value the creative process in this country. The message we wish to convey is that in our opinion, creators are an integral, vital part of this country. Admittedly, there are financial considerations involved. However, creators will be even more appreciative of the fact that Canadians respect the work they do. It seems that every time some new technology emerges, we are the first ones to be shunted aside because we are a small, expendable group. We need your support if we are to have the true value of our work recognized and if we are to demonstrate that culture is important to this country.
The Chairman: Could you be more specific? You do not often have this opportunity. When you say that you would like the value of the work of Canadian creators to be recognized even more, whether here in Canada or abroad, what kind of measures are you advocating?
Mr. Valiquette: We have a system in place where we are often the last ones to be compensated. We provide the raw material. Without creators, we would not have singers, record companies or concert producers. Yet, when we look at how the money is divided, everyone, from the trucker down to the producer, takes a cut before we do. If we are lucky, we get something. Sometimes, there is no money left. The system makes it difficult for us to earn a livelihood in this business.
You asked me an honest question, and I will try to give you an honest answer. I have not discussed this with my colleagues, but if I had a choice, I would prefer to earn my living as a music composer. Right now, that is not possible for me because the value of what we do is not rewarded. Furthermore, when the time comes for us to collect our money, there is always some middle person who gives us a hard time. People in my line of work are forced to do other things. Some teach, some act, while others even drive taxis. Our profession should be recognized as an honourable one. People should be able to earn enough to support their families.
The other day, I heard an expression that I liked a lot, "the devil's in the details." It is all of the small details that make a difference. There is no one thing that we can single out. We have an opportunity now, with the advent of new media, to promote the value of the work creators do and to ensure that they are properly compensated for their efforts. Obviously, those who use our works are going to come here and expound on the reasons why they should not pay. We have to stick to our guns because the stakes are high.
This is not something that is going to be resolved in two weeks with one single decision. This is only the first stage. I have a 20-year-old son. He has also been bitten by the bug. Music is in his blood. I am forced to admit to him that after 25 years in the business, not much has changed. I would like to give my son an opportunity to earn his living in this wonderful business.
The Chairman: I totally agree with you. Twenty-five years ago, I was a young radio producer. I had my favourites and I played records by a composer named Gilles Valiquette. Therefore, I hope that one day, you will be fairly compensated because you are a favourite of radio producers.
[English]
Our report will honour your members.
[Translation]
Mr. Valiquette: I greatly appreciate your comments and I take great pride in our efforts.
[English]
Senator Johnson: In Part II we need to study the status of the artists. I think the same thing happens in a lot of other areas.
The committee continued in camera.