Tag Archives: vice president from canada

East Coast Music Awards
Vice President from Canada

Bargaining to Begin with ECMA

Pour la version française cliquez ici

Since the writing of this column, the parties have successfully negotiated a successor agreement.

The 2017 edition of the East Coast Music Awards is scheduled for April 26-30, with the host city being Saint John, New Brunswick. During those five days, the city will be immersed in music in every venue, culminating with the gala award event Sunday night. However, in early December, the East Coast Music Association (ECMA) was placed on the AFM’s Unfair List by the Canadian Office.

The ECMA and the AFM had enjoyed a long, mutually beneficial relationship, with the signing of the first agreement in the mid-1990s. Contracts that included pension were always in place for sponsored showcases, events, and the awards show. The AFM would often sponsor an award, and was omnipresent every year with an informational booth, workshops, and seminars on topics of interest to musicians embarking on careers in music.

Two years ago, something changed. The ECMA refused to come to the table and renew the agreement. Although the broadcaster of the awards show signed a letter of adherence, the showcases and other events were not under AFM contract.

Without the renewed agreement and/or a properly executed AFM contract in place, there could be no pension contributions. In addition, recording was rampant and streamed both during the week and well after.

CFM representatives met with four members of the ECMA board in October. It became clear, after considerable dialogue, that a reasonable fee for the musicians was not the issue. Having the “union” involved was, for all the philosophical reasons.

In many of our agreements, including this one, a temporary membership permit (TMP) is required to be deducted from the fees of nonmembers. It seems this became a bone of contention. In Canada, this is an application of the RAND formula, under which nonunion employees have a portion of their wages deducted as their share of servicing the CBA under which they are working.

Using this formula allows a temporary member to be listed on the contract with members, and receive exactly the same services and benefits for the same classification of service, for the duration of the gig. This includes pension and any ensuing residuals, such as New Use. In addition, the TMP fee can be credited toward membership for one calendar year.

If the musician does not take advantage of the credit, those fees find their way back into the music community, through the host local’s outreach at seminars and informational meetings, as well as the sponsorship of awards.

There have been some developments in this rather unfortunate situation, as the ECMA board has contacted our office and agreed to sit down to bargain a successor agreement. Negotiations will take place in Halifax January 18 and 19, with January 20 as a backup date.

It’s our sincere hope that we are successful, the musicians’ performances are protected and properly remunerated, and the CFM and ECMA can once again join forces as partners in the effort to bring East Coast music to the world, and for the world to recognize the musicians that make this truly unique sound.

Canadian Orchestra
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Canadian Content in a Digital World: 12 Important Points of Our Brief

Canadian Content in a Digital World is an extremely important consultation process initiated by the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage. As I have reported previously, by opening up many laws and their respective boards, we have an opportunity right now, to equalize what was lost through the evolution of digital distribution. However, this revisit presents imminent danger, as those who utilize digital content and those who profit from it, are also welcome to present their wish list. A detailed presentation by the CFM is imperative, as well as joining other organizations of like minds, in order to counter the demands of a profit-focused industry. The deadline for written submission was November 25, and the following is a short summary of our full brief.

This consultation should lay the foundation for the regulatory and policy tools and financial support needed to ensure that Canadian professional musicians thrive in the digital environment now and for the years ahead.

1) Amend the definition of “sound recording.” The current definition of sound recording in the Copyright Act needs to be amended so that performers can collect royalties when their recorded performances of music on the soundtracks of audiovisual works, such as TV programs and movies, are broadcast or streamed on the Internet and when they are presented in movie theatres. Also, we recommend ratification of the Beijing Treaty.

2) Remove the $1.25 million royalty exemption for commercial broadcasters. Amending the Copyright Act to remove this unnecessary exemption for commercial radio would add millions of dollars’ worth of royalties for recording artists.

3) Expand private copying to include new copying technology. In the course of this consultation, the government should undertake to prepare the necessary legislative changes needed to update the private-copying regime to reflect advances in digital copying technology.

4) Reform the Copyright Board. Improvements to the operations and practices of the Copyright Board, which are procedural and regulatory in nature, need to be addressed and implemented as soon as possible.

5) Reduce piracy in the digital world. Our cultural policies and laws must offer a practical response to piracy that better aligns with how Canadians consume content, and that helps Canadian professional musicians and other content creators succeed in a digital, global market.

6) Value Canadian content. Valuing culture through up-to-date legislation, funding innovation and creativity, and education is “key to having a strong society, a vibrant democracy, and to promoting Canadian cultural content to the world.”

7) End runaway post-production. We urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make changes to the CAVCO qualifications in order to disincentive domestic media producers from using offshore musicians to record scores for Canadian movies and television programs created by Canadian musicians in Canada.

8) Continue funding for musicians. We encourage the federal government to continue to support the Canadian music industry through a series of direct and indirect measures.

9) Update Canadian content regulations. We urge the government to work with the music community to transition content quotas and the MAPL designation from an analog to a digital world.

10) Support venues for live performance. The federal government needs to work with provincial and local governments to ensure that there is adequate funding to support venues where recording artists can perform live.

11) Improve music education. We recommend that governments at all levels work together to improve music learning in our public schools.

12) Support export of Canadian musicians. We ask that the government follow through with its commitment, made in the Music Industry Review, to improve funding and support for Canadian musicians touring domestically and internationally.

While a thoughtful and comprehensive submission is essential, we continue to lobby Ottawa, attend Department of Heritage seminars/panels, and push hard to ensure the government recognizes that the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada is the only voice they should consider when inviting input from musicians in the artists/creators sector of this country.

Canadian Orchestra
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Recommendations for Amendments to Canada’s Copyright Board

Pour la version française cliquez ici.

Last month, I spoke of our renewed efforts to bring Status of the Artist legislation to Ontario. This month, it’s the CFM submission to the Committee of Banking, Trade and Commerce, part of the Senate of Canada, on the operation and practices of the Copyright Board of Canada. With Heritage opening the door to examine and revise so many aspects of the laws that affect culture—and musicians—we felt that it was best to separate our recommendations for the Copyright Board (which are procedural and regulatory in nature), and treat the 2017 s.92 Copyright review as a separate issue.

One of the major issues is the backlog of decisions, which can sometimes take years, as well as sometimes erratic rulings when setting new tariffs. I will skip many of the details of our submission, and focus on the four major recommendations.

Voluntary Agreements

One approach to relieve the board of the backlog of tariff certifications is to consider voluntary licensing, a regime used in countries such as Finland, France, Greece, Israel, and Mexico, which have no rate-setting procedures. In the UK, collective licensing for remuneration is voluntarily agreed upon by contract between the parties. When consensus cannot be reached, a tribunal is utilized to play a part in the process. In Holland, the tariff for performers’ rights are made by agreement with the users, and distributed to phonogram producers and performers on a 50-50 basis. Upon disagreement of share, the High Court in The Hague has exclusive jurisdiction.

Mandatory Mediation

We recommend that all tariff matters before the Copyright Board be subject to a prehearing mediation process, using the mediation programme and case management under the Ontario rules of Civil Procedure as a model.

Expedited Process

An expedited process can be found in the Australian copyright law, which requires that “… proceedings shall be conducted with as little formality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of this Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit.” The UK and the US copyright tribunals provide for similar expedition in the case of simple matters.

Another avenue would be to set out specified timelines in the regulations for any matter before the board.

Criteria for Rate-Setting

The CFM was among 70 music organizations that publicly opposed the Tariff 8 decision, which set royalty rates for noninteractive webcasting services in Canada. The decision also brought into focus the need for rate-setting criteria that includes consideration of existing marketplace agreements. The rate, in fact, ignored international standards that support the growth and development of the industry in world markets.

A report written by Marcel Boyer, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Montreal, for the C.D. Howe Institute entitled: “The Value of Copyrights in Recorded Music: Terrestrial Radio and Beyond,” concluded that the value of recorded music is approximately 2.5 times greater than the level of royalties certified by the Copyright Board. Boyer continued that the approach used by the board consistently undervalued copyrights in the context of the commercial terrestrial radio industry, and that this flawed approach has been carried over into the determinations for noninteractive webcasting tariffs.

The CFM recommends that specific criteria be used for rate setting, including recourse to comparative market value analysis under s.66.91 of the Copyright Act.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all members to embrace the spirit of love, compassion, and giving that is prevalent at this time of year. We sometimes take for granted how fortunate we all are, to have health, family, and relative peace in our time. I wish each of you a very Merry Christmas, and the best to you and yours for a wonderful and prosperous new year.

Vice President from Canada

Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report

The Ontario Government has released an interim report of the Changing Workplaces Review, which can be found at: https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/about/pdf/cwr_interim.pdf.

This 312-page document contains a synopsis of submissions from various unions and organizations that pertain to areas of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act (LRA) that may no longer be relevant in today’s workplace—specifically to workers in the audiovisual/media industry. Also contained are what the advisors consider to be options, based on those submissions and existing practice in other jurisdictions around the world.

As in all things involving government, this vast review may be nothing but a diversion pending the next election; or, it may be an opportunity to make positive change for musicians in how they are viewed and treated in the workforce and the remedies available to them in conflicts with employers.

For Canadian musicians, maintaining status as either independent or dependent contractors has huge tax advantages. Unfortunately, in most cases, this precludes the ability to capitalize on the benefits of being an employee. Certainly, a hybrid of the two is desirable, yet unlikely to ever materialize.

The CFM has taken the position that we will support some of the principles put forth by other arts organizations such as ACTRA, IATSE, and the DGC (some of whom do have employee status), but we must also think of what is best for working musicians. That, of course, is legislation that mirrors the federal Status of the Artist Act.

Here is the content of the submission to Queen’s Park from the CFM:

4.2.2 – Related and Joint Employer

Respectfully, the observations and possible solutions suggested in the review in determining the “true employer” or “related employer” does not address the shell game that exists within the media industry as it relates to musicians. As an example, let’s use a hypothetical film entitled Working Title, which is being produced by a member of the Canadian Media Producers’ Association (CMPA) for initial broadcast on Canadian TV or cable.

The independent producer generally retains the services of a composer under a personal services contract, whereby the composer agrees to deliver a finished original recording as underscore for Working Title. The composer writes the score, and may perform some or all of the parts on a digital workstation (synthesizer). Or, the composer may hire additional musicians—in some cases a full orchestra—to record an even more elaborate score.

Either way, the composer and the musicians would be covered under a CFM film agreement. These agreements contain language stipulating that the original score must remain synchronized to Working Title, and that the music cannot be extracted to be reused or repurposed for other programming, without adherence to the appropriate CFM agreement. But the independent producer is not the signatory (because they cannot be compelled to bargain with the CFM), and through their personal services contract with the composer, require the composer to be signatory and thus technically responsible for the recorded product.

Now it gets interesting. Let’s assume that the terms of the CFM agreement have not been adhered to, and the music for Working Title is now being used in a television spin-off programme. Who, then, is responsible for making the musicians (including the composer), whole? Is it the poor composer, who the independent producer insisted upon being the employer of the musicians? Is it the independent producer, who owns the intellectual property (copyright) on Working Title? Is it the broadcaster, who perhaps initially commissioned the film to be produced and subsequently lifted the music for their new TV show? Is it the (possible) US co-producer, who has invested heavily in the production as a silent partner? Is there any liability on the part of the Ontario government, which funded a significant part of the production through tax credits and grants?

There are many possible combinations of the above scenario, including multiple production companies, sometimes solely incorporated to payroll only Working Title, and then disappear upon completion of the production to avoid further liability, or any detectable connection with a “true” employer.

While the suggested solutions in 4.2.2, including rulings being made on a case-by-case basis, may address more simple relationships, there is no way they can address the above convoluted example. Interestingly, the above confusion is entirely avoided if the CFM negotiates a scale agreement with the independent producer.

The CFM, therefore, recommends introduction of provincial Status of the Artist legislation, with a collective bargaining component, as contemplated in 4.6.1—Broader-based Bargaining Structures, Option 9. In addition, we recommend that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) govern the act, similar to how the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has assumed that responsibility formerly held by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal (CAPPRT).

In addition, we recommend that any single producer who becomes part of a producer association and is bound by a scale or other agreement, be automatically bound by such agreement upon joining. Conversely, a producer should not be allowed to escape the terms of an agreement by withdrawing membership from the producer association.

Further, once a provincial Status of the Artist Act becomes law, any existing collective or scale agreement negotiated by any of the arts associations or unions, must be grandfathered to avoid any unforeseen negative impact.

5.2.1 – Definition of Employee

Musicians represented by the CFM have many different employment scenarios, ranging from clear “independent contractor” gigs (such as weddings or concert work), to “dependent contractor” situations (such as symphony orchestras and long-run theatrical work) to instances where they are employees by definition.

The CFM supports the notion that “dependent contractors” should be provided for in the ESA under Option 6. We also support the premise that, in the case of an employer attempting to avoid responsibilities under the ESA by classifying workers as self-employed, the burden of proof would be on the employer to make the case as to why they are not employees or dependent contractors, whichever the case may be.

5.2.2 – Who Is the Employer and Scope of Liability

The CFM is in support of Option 2: holding employers and/or contractors responsible for their contractors/subcontractors compliance with the ESA.

That said, determining who the players are, as explained in the Working Title example, would lead to unlimited confusion and long lines before the OLRB, in terms of proper application and remedy concerning employers of musicians. In terms of recorded work in audiovisual media, CFM recommends that the determination of who is the employer include the question of intellectual property. Simply, who ultimately owns the copyright on the product? That entity (if not the contractor or subcontractor) should clearly be looked to, especially in the case of obligations and liabilities in the future, or in the case where the copyright is assigned to yet another party.

In Conclusion

The CFM has no objection to the various amendments suggested by our counterparts in the entertainment/media industry in terms of amendments and clarifications to the ESA and LRA. However, we cannot stress enough that such measures fall short of what is required to regulate employment of musicians and remedy any situations that may arise perhaps years after the work is complete. We believe introduction of a provincial Status of the Artist Act is a solution that can only enhance the recommended changes and simplify the relationship between employers and musicians who are traditionally self-employed contractors.

As phase two, the CFM has Status of the Artist legislation written and ready to present.

Hopefully, they will accept our proposal to introduce this legislation, and can then compel individual employers or their associations (if empowered to negotiate) to bargain agreements for our musicians. It would be the right thing to do.

Copyright
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Music Policy Coalition: A United Voice for Copyright Reform

The CFM, in preparation for the five-year review of Canada’s Copyright Act, is a part of a number of music industry coalitions. One of these groups is the Music Policy Coalition (MPC), bringing together the Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN); Canadian Independent Music Association (CIMA); Canada’s Neighbouring Rights Collective (Re:Sound); the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA); Québec Association for the Recording, Concert and Video Industries (ADISQ); Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC); and Union des Artistes (UDA), to name a few.

Continue reading →

kraftwerk
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Devastating Decision by German Courts

A 19-year-long copyright suit filed by the German e-music pioneer band Kraftwerk for infringement against Sabrina Setlur, has been decided, and the result is not good news for the community of creators. Kraftwerk’s Ralf Huetter had previously obtained a court order to suppress Setlur’s 1997 song “Nur mir,” insisting that it contained a drum sequence looped from Kraftwerk’s 1977 “Metall auf Metall.”

The court found that sampling was a basis for, and helped create hip-hop music, and that if the sample’s effect on the rights holder is negligible, then artistic freedom should override the interest of the copyright owner. The German constitutional court further acknowledged sampling to be a “style-defining element” of hip-hop, and therefore overturned the previous court verdict that was in Kraftwerk’s favour.

It went on to note that imposing royalties on composers could be crippling, if copyright owners were allowed to demand any amount, or simply reject the usage request. The court held that composers should be allowed to create without any financial risks or restrictions to the creative process. Therefore, sampling would be permitted, if it is part of a new composition that does not stand in direct competition to the sampled work, and does not damage the copyright owner financially.

kraftwerkThe ruling, which sets a dangerous precedent for copyright owners worldwide, is interesting as it bastardized the 1967 Berne Convention three-step test, which states that a signatory country may allow an exception to the rules against reproduction only 1) in certain special cases, provided that 2) such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, and 3) does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Certainly, one cannot argue that widespread sampling of music constitutes a “special case.” I, for one, disagree with the German court’s decision.

The Berne three-step test is widely referenced in other international agreements, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT) Article 10, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), the EU Computer Programs Directive (Article 6(3)), the EU Database Directive (Article 6(3)), and the EU Copyright Directive (Article 5(5)). The test is applied to provide for exceptions to audiovisual recordings as well as literary works.

Update on the CBC Negotiations

During the last round of negotiations, the CFM bargaining team and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) negotiators, agreed to suspend bargaining and enter into a six-month extension of the current agreement. It was felt that more research was required to determine the direction, and forecasted amount of production planned by the CBC for the future, in order to properly structure language and fees.

In addition, the CFM felt that the extension would allow for some of the liberal government’s promised infusion of
$850 million to filter into the system, which would dramatically change the landscape in terms of the CBC’s vision of being a “content provider,” and allow for better adherence to the national broadcaster’s mandate. There will be more news on this at a later date.

Digital Content Market
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

The Global Digital Content Market

Being a newbie, sliding into my seat to listen to presentations on the global digital market in the main conference hall at WIPO headquarters in Geneva was like revisiting a university lecture hall. Except that, unlike a campus lecture, there were more than 1,000 registrations from 144 countries.

Now, on to what was learned. The creative industry represents more than 30 million jobs worldwide. The global music recording industry is worth US $15 billion. Revenue from digital sources grew to $6.8 billion and is now equal to those from physical sources, averaged across all markets. Yet, music is still in a state of flux as it struggles to adapt to the online era. Digital delivery decreases the cost of creating, distributing, and storing music, yet the remuneration to artists in this medium has not made up the difference from losses in physical sales.

Continue reading →

local 406
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Local 406 Is Back!

After what seems like years, I am pleased to report that a service agreement has been reached between La Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Quebec and the AFM, allowing them to continue as an important, vibrant part of the Federation. Difficulties had progressively mounted, as our third largest local, Local 406, was straddled with the overwhelming obligations of representing all musicians in the province under Status of the Artist.

In addition, Local 406 could not just compel producers to sign onto existing AFM agreements, as other laws require a “made in Quebec” solution, which was made even more complex with language laws. These unique circumstances were ultimately addressed by the International Executive Board, resulting in an arrangement that allows more flexibility for the local, while maintaining their charter in the AFM.

Special thanks go out to both AFM International President Ray Hair and the Local 406 team, led by President Luc Fortin. To their credit, they showed tremendous patience and understanding, which allowed for the necessary dialogue and the resulting solution.

Music Supervisors Summit

local 406Several weeks ago, an incident occurred involving our New Use Department that led to a decision, which has echoed through most of the production houses in Toronto. At the core, was a request for paper backup to substantiate new use fees on a popular tune from the 1960s.

As always, the client was in a hurry for a final quote, and our office knew that it would take many days, perhaps weeks, to track down a contract from 50 years ago. Knowing the band was AFM, and knowing the label was signatory (Warner), our team went online to determine how many musicians were on the track. We quickly responded to the production company with the answer—four musicians (five units), and gave them the fee.

That should have been the end. However, the company refused to acknowledge that the track was AFM unless we produced the B4 report form. Knowing that would take time, we instead obtained the “label copy” from Warner and were, of course, able to identify each musician on the album. Still, that was not satisfactory.

I started to become fearful that there was a game at play. Did the producers realize that on a track that old, we could very likely be chasing paper for some time? By stating that without the B4 there was no proof it was an AFM product, they could potentially pocket the fees paying nothing to the musicians who did the recording. For me, such a notion is incredibly unacceptable. Also, we met the burden of proof in other ways, as did Warner. So, I then made the decision to cease providing a copy of the B4, to anyone, period. After all, it’s an internal document, resulting from an agreement between the labels and the AFM. A third party should not be entitled access to a document containing wages, pension, and Social Security or Social Insurance Numbers.

When informed of my new policy, the production company, of course, was extremely upset. In what appeared to be a search in support for their cause, the company then reached out to other music supervisors, the jingle agencies, and even the major labels. Copies of the Master Licence Agreements issued by the labels were obtained to determine exactly what language tied the licensee (producer) to paying new use fees to the AFM. When the dust settled, a meeting of all concerned was scheduled in downtown Toronto, ostensibly to challenge my decision, and possibly to the extent of challenging the labels’ licence language, and the validity of new use.

Contract Administrator for Canada Daniel Calabrese and New Use Administrator James Gadon attended, along with myself, as the presenter for the AFM. The turnout was surprising. There were more than 50 attending in person, with SAG-AFTRA representatives Skyped in from Los Angeles. The meeting lasted in excess of two hours.

SAG-AFTRA presented first, followed by the labels; it was then CFM’s turn. I prefaced the question period with a brief history of the SRLA, the rationale for new use payments, and the fact that similar requirements live in all our scale agreements. I also detailed the setup of our ramped-up new use department, new servers, contract scanning procedures, and link with Los Angeles as our view was to deliver a new use quote in minutes, not days or weeks.

We answered all questions quickly and succinctly, and in the end, not one music supervisor dared to suggest that the musicians did not deserve new use fees for having their music synchronized or repurposed. In fact, all comments directed at the CFM were positive. It seems our quotes and responses were understood and very well received. All were left with the knowledge that we’re approachable and easy to work with. Indeed, good news to our team.

I believe the meeting was a major step forward in having a working relationship with the city’s music supervisors, and a reminder to them that tracks must be cleared through our office. In addition, dialogue that occurred with the major labels prior to the meeting, as well as after, was a positive step toward developing a sustainable rhythm in the process of tracking, billing, collecting, and disbursing new use fees to our members.

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

The Music Business—Machine or Eco-System?

My friend, Local 149 (Toronto, ON). Senior Business Rep Dan Broome has bad days and good days—in other words, he ranges from highly intelligent to genius. One of his theories is that music is an eco-system, which upon reflection, is accurate.

Theorizing that musicians and their product are the “roots” of the system, we can easily visualize what comprises the various branches and leaves. For instance, musicians require instruments. One branch would represent the manufacturers, the leaves are their employees, the transportation and distribution network, the music stores and sales team, related accessories, and repairs. That branch alone represents literally thousands of industry people.

Consider the recording studio branch. Aside from engineers, techs, and office staff, we have the folks that master the recording, manufacturers of recording gear, microphones, cabling, tape/memory, amps and all related products, distribution, and human resources. Again, this represents literally thousands of people that rely on musicians.

The broadcast industry is another huge branch. Hundreds of radio stations, web, and streaming sites, the DJs (both on-air and in private business), and the thousands of folks working in media depend on the musicians’ product. Advertisers and the products that depend on wide exposure are an extension of this industry.

The live music scene is a support mechanism for a myriad of offshoot businesses, from the companies that produce liquor and beer, tables, chairs, and other ancillary products to the bartenders, waitresses, cleaning staff, and taxis that rely on wobbly patrons looking for a safe lift home.

It’s easy now to extrapolate and project the billions of dollars generated annually in Canada by music and various tertiary industries that rely upon it. Why then is the average income of a musician in this country barely $15K? We need to examine what’s broken with the system.

The “fruit” growing from the branches represents the tremendous amount of money generated. The “farmers” are the recording labels, venue owners, streaming companies, festival promoters, etc. As in any interdependent society, some of the fruit should be left to feed the roots and reseed the industry, in other words, to share the profits with the source—the musicians. Failure to reinvest in any business leads inevitably to failure.

Unfortunately, the employers we deal with have a far different view of the music industry. I have often visualized an inept government, or charity, where billions of dollars are fed into one end of a giant machine, and out of a pipe at the other end drops a nickel for the public—or in this case, the musician. The employers, and their insatiable desire for ever-increasing profit margins, clearly operate similar to this machine model. Without a fair share of the profits going to the “roots,” the eco-system must inevitably die. Musicians seek other types of work to subsist, which then deteriorates their skills and the resulting product. Or, they make a career decision not to enter the industry at all, which also leads to system collapse.

Also unfortunate is the fact that more musicians will come along who are willing to work longer hours, for less money or free, further perpetuating the greedy ways of the employers. The obvious answer is collective action. When you record or perform live, always make sure you are paid what you are worth and never below scale or without a contract. That’s the only way to force employers to abandon the “machine” model and embrace their responsibility to help sustain music’s eco-system.

Liberal Government Repeals Bills

Unions throughout Canada are pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal controversial bills C-377 and C-525. These bills were designed to weaken unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting, and by making it more difficult for Canadians in federally-regulated workplaces to join a union.

These bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament by the last government in June 2015, despite loud opposition from many different groups, including the NHL Players Association, Conservative and Liberal senators, constitutional experts, Canada’s privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry. Minister Mihychuk should be commended for her leadership in repealing this legislation and restoring a balanced labour relations framework for federal workers.

Vice President from Canada

Statistics Canada’s Report on the Economics of Canadian Culture

Statistics Canada just released a paper that outlines the Provincial and Territorial Canadian Culture Satellite Account (PTCSA). The PTCSA provides measures of the economic importance of culture (inclusive of the arts and heritage) across Canada in terms of output, gross domestic product, and employment, for reference year 2010.

Continue reading →