Bill C-11 Committee on Feb. 28th, 2012

[Cynthia Andrew]

I would certainly say that teachers are extremely aware, largely because of a lot of the public media coverage that Bill C-11 has started to receive, of how under the law their use of copyright materials in the classroom may differ in their professional role from their personal role. That is something on which we've just begun working with our colleagues, the teachers' federations and other educational organizations, to talk to teachers about.

Would I say they are overly cautious? I would say they are overly excited about the new law, because one of the things that has changed is that there are now far more resources available than there ever have been for schools before. Sometimes teachers aren't relying on textbooks. That doesn't mean there isn't a textbook; there is. They are supplementing with information they would not have received before.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Ms. Andrew, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braid.

Up next is Monsieur Dionne Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Bouchard, you haven't spoken much today. So my question is for you.

When we talk about a bill that aims to modernize copyright, we should be concerned with protecting the acquired rights. The bill should make it possible to consolidate the acquired rights of creators and the industry to go further, while ensuring that what is working well remains in place.

The licensing scheme developed in Quebec, particularly in the area of education, is working well at the moment. It provides financial compensation to copyright holders, which is motivating enough to encourage them to produce more materials. But the current bill is a head-on threat to the royalties and the scheme developed in Quebec. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

[Jean Bouchard]

We have heard that sometimes one page from a manual is used in the classroom and that this would be fair. But it would also be fair to compensate the writer and publisher that created the material, even though it is only one page.

In education—which is what interests me—authors work with publishers to create documents that fit with the programs. These documents are learning tools that provide structured and scientifically validated information. And we acquire all sorts of rights, for the illustrations, the tables and the text, and now digital rights, to create a whole, an overall tool that is truly relevant for the classroom. The department of education ultimately validates the material by approving it for use in the classroom.

As Aline just said, the publishers are considered the research and development unit for our departments of education. We provide them with the tools. I think that if we do not recognize it and do not adequately compensate the work of writers, they will stop working with us. We must also keep in mind—

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

As I understand it, the day after the act as written takes effect, authors and people in publishing are going to lose money. Based on what I've been told, the copyright holders would lose about $6 million in the first year.

[Jean Bouchard]

It would be more than $6 million.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

How much do you think the losses would be?

[Jean Bouchard]

It would be around $11 million, in the first year. We are talking about writers and publishers, but also the education system.

In the short term, you won't feel the effects because you'll be able to use the existing material. It has been developed and will be relevant for a certain number of years. But when the departments of education think about renewing their programs, who is going to be interested in investing in the development of this content? The work is complex. It will involve an investment of $1 million to $1.5 million per resource and per level, meaning for each discipline, and those are just initial investments.

So the people who will get into this will do so because there is a stable, well-established business model and no uncertainty.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Clarke just mentioned that Canadian colleges, with a few exceptions, support the measures in the bill. But I think that the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec is not in favour of the bill as written.

[Jean Bouchard]

The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec thinks, as do we, that the provisions of this bill jeopardize the development of future educational resources.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We have received proposed amendments from the Canadian Federation of Musicians, where you worked. I'd like to quickly read one of the proposed amendments, which sets out one of the application criteria for fair dealing:

e) the use … by itself or together with similar dealings: (i) would not have an adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work…

With the amendment worded this way, it would meet your expectations and eliminate your concerns.

[Jean Bouchard]

Yes. It would also serve the education of Canadians in the future.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

You have time.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

May I step in?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here. My question is for Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Côté.

Do you not have the impression that, unfortunately, the legislator here could have drawn more inspiration from the system in Quebec? Clearly, this system seems to be working with the collective regime. There was an agreement but, today, the bill is literally stirring up ill feelings among the parties that agreed previously. Is that right?

[Jean Bouchard]

Yes, we are next to each other, and we are all concerned about the education of young people. On the one hand, the people who pay for the rights are in favour of the bill; on the other, those who reap the benefits, in other words, the return on their investment, are against it. In principle, we work well together most of the time.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Up next is Mr. Armstrong for five minutes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, and thank you for your presentations. I have so many questions and so little time here. I'm going to try to move quickly.

First of all, Ms. Clarke, just back on the distance learning issue, I have a copy of the legislation here and I'm going to read a quote from it and see if you can tell me what's unfair about it or what changes you'd like to see. It says:

Subject to subsection (6), it is not an infringement of copyright for an educational institution or a person acting under its authority

(a) to communicate a lesson to the public by telecommunication for educational or training purposes, if that public consists only of students who are enrolled in a course of which the lesson forms a part or of other persons acting under the authority of the educational institution;

It's clarified under “Reproducing lessons”. I want to focus on the reproduction of lessons. The bill says, “It is not an infringement of copyright for a student who has received a lesson by means of communication by telecommunication”, which I referred to earlier, “under paragraph (3)(a) to reproduce the lesson in order to be able to listen to or view it at a more convenient time.” So you can tape a lesson and look at it later.

The bill then states:

However, the student shall destroy the reproduction within 30 days after the day on which the students who are enrolled in the course to which the lesson relates have received their final course evaluations.

So if I'm a student taking a distance learning course, I tape a lesson off the Internet or off television, however it is broadcast, and I say that I can go back and actually look at it the night before an exam. But 30 days after I get my final grade, I'm asked to erase that. That sounds inherently fair to me as both an educator with 18 years of experience as a professor and a teacher and also as someone who has taken a lot of courses online. Isn't it fair that you would erase something like that that would be copyrighted after 30 days of getting your final course evaluation?

[Michèle Clarke]

Let me try to answer that succinctly.

First of all, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not well positioned to be able to respond legally, if you wish, to your particular question. I'm happy to come back to you at a later date, maybe in a week with some details.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Sure.

[Michèle Clarke]

I'll confer with my colleagues at the office.

The element of destroying course.... Online learning and being able to provide, as Mr. Brulé said earlier, that opportunity for learners to go back and look at that material whenever they wish to learn it.... It is to establish, certainly, that the learning process is as fair for individuals who are in the classroom as it is for online learning. I've mentioned twice already that online learning is growing exponentially with the institutions, via offering courses in rural and remote areas. In some areas that's the only way to offer learning and to get to those particular learners. To require them to destroy those class notes in 30 days is very difficult. It's not manageable.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

It doesn't say destroying class notes.

If I'm sitting in my home watching the lesson, I'm taking my class notes. I'm not required to destroy those after 30 days.

[Michèle Clarke]

No.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I'm only required to destroy the reproduction of the lesson that I'm watching.