Bill C-11 Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We're being asked by the other side to change it in a different way. What prohibits us, as legislators, from changing the legislation?

[Victoria Shepherd]

I can't speak to that because I'm not a copyright lawyer. What I can speak to is that we're not actually asking you to change.... What we're asking for is just to make sure that the bill says what it's supposed to say, what you have said that you want it to say, which is that the 30 days be 30 days. What we're asking for is really just a technical change. There hasn't been any request for any kind of a policy change.

We're just saying that the government said these were temporary copies. And we just want to make sure that they are indeed temporary copies, which was your stated intent.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Lake. We're well past the time.

Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Lake, thank you for that. I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today. It's much appreciated. Your testimony and input are valued by this committee.

We will suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the second half of meeting number 8 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-11.

I'd like to welcome all of our guests and our witnesses here this morning. Starting with the Canadian Educational Resource Council, we have Gerry McIntyre and Greg Nordal. From the Canadian Publishers' Council, we have Jacqueline Hushion and Mr. David Swail. And from the Canadian Association of Law Libraries, we have Mary Hemmings.

Again, thank you for appearing today. Each of you has been briefed by the clerk that you have 10 minutes in opening statements per organization. Starting off with those 10 minutes will be the Canadian Educational Resource Council.

[Dr. Gerry McIntyre, Executive Director, Canadian Educational Resources Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for making this time available to meet with you and share some views on Bill C-11.

My name is Gerry McIntyre. I'm executive director of the Canadian Educational Resources Council, which is the trade association of the major Canadian publishers for the K to 12 system in Canada. Our members account for 75% of the curriculum-based learning materials that are used in Canadian schools outside of the province of Quebec.

Before being approved by ministries of education for use in Canadian schools, our resources are evaluated very rigorously in terms of their match to what students are to be learning, the age appropriateness of the material, the grade specificity of the material, the absence of bias from this learning material, and, importantly, that it reflects the Canadian experience in all possible ways.

For any given grade and subject, the cost of developing an education resource that matches the curriculum ranges from $400,000 to $1 million. That is with no guarantee of sale of the product and with no alternative market for a product developed so specifically. So clearly the K to 12 education market in Canada is one that involves considerable investment and a considerable level of risk.

I am delighted to have with me today Mr. Greg Nordal, who will provide you with a publisher's perspective on Bill C-11 and what it means for that market.

[Greg Nordal, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nelson Education, Canadian Educational Resources Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for this opportunity to address you on behalf of the K to 12 educational publishers sector. My name is Greg Nordal and I'm president and CEO of Nelson Education, Canada's largest publisher in this segment. We have roots in Canada going back to 1914.

There are many positive components of Bill C-11. Our industry is fully supportive of the intent to modernize copyright law in Canada and much of what we see in Bill C-11 achieves its purpose.

However, the educational fair dealing exception clause, as drafted, is problematic in many ways. It would create an environment of uncertainty for Canadian rights holders and authors, it would lead to an unacceptable level of investment risk for publishers and potentially harm the market, and it would have the unintended consequence of undermining the future availability of indigenous materials and learning resources created specifically for Canadian students and educators.

From the point of view of the creative community, the issues are clear. Who could reasonably expect publishers to spend millions of dollars a year investing in new learning resources for Canadian schools if rights holders are not protected and there's no viable expectation of return? What incentive do Canadian authors have to invest their time and talent to create content without viable opportunities for compensation?

This committee has heard some contend that educational fair use exceptions have worked well under U.S. law, so why would Canadian publishers have any concern? However, there is an important distinction to be made here. In the U.S., fair use provisions make it clear that commercial harm to right holders is the primary determinant of fair use in copyright. That's the trump card. In Canada, on the other hand, the much discussed six-step test is to be used to determine what is fair. Commercial harm is but one test of the six under CCH to help assess what is fair. Commercial harm is not deemed as the most important test, and in and of itself commercial harm does not determine what is fair. In the U.S. the effect on the market for the copyright work is determinant, and it is the central fair use factor. This principle gives U.S. publishers the comfort they need to invest in new and innovative solutions for schools, students, and educators. To suggest that the fair dealing exception in Bill C-11 is comparable to fair use protection is extremely misleading. To suggest that the six-step test is adequate protection for Canada's creative community is worrisome indeed.

This committee has also heard from some within the educational community who say that Bill C-11 changes nothing with regard to compensation for educational publishers and authors, that our concerns are unfounded, and that these words are contradicted by real world experience.

I speak from such experience in the K to 12 publishing sector. The Copyright Board issued a decision in 2004 that set out what uses are fair by teachers and are to be considered fair under fair dealing. This decision was appealed by the ministers of education to the Federal Court, which in 2010 affirmed the Copyright Board's decision on fairness. Publishers have accepted both the Copyright Board's and the Federal Court's rulings on what is fair, but not so the educational sector. In fact, the educational sector has contested the fairness determination all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard the issue in December 2011. The decision is pending. Despite multiple rulings on what is fair dealing and fair compensation for the creative community, this issue, 10 years after the original Copyright Board decision, has still not been accepted by the K to 12 market. It's worth noting that the litigation has been lengthy, costly, and has generated much uncertainty in Canadian publishing for authors, publishers, and other stakeholders. The proposed exception will further undermine protection for copyrighted materials in the educational sector. The proposed educational exception will have an adverse impact on our market, based on experience.

To be clear, the amount of classroom copying that is happening today is not trivial. On an individual classroom basis, the amount of copying may seem a trifle to some but in aggregate the amount of copying taking place is immense. In 2009, over 300 million pages were copied in Canadian K to 12 schools. That equates to over $40 million in annual book sales, given the typical size and price of a book at the K to 12 level alone. If you include higher education, colleges and universities, the figure is much higher. It's well over half a billion pages copied on an annual basis, and these are materials copied directly from copyrighted works. We're not talking about what's freely available.

It is possible to amend the fair dealing exception so that it reflects the stated positions of the ministers of education, the Canadian School Boards Association, and others. But this is not about avoiding fair compensation to rights holders. It should not be a problem for the educational community, based on their assurances on this point, to accept the amendments we have tabled for consideration.

On behalf of Canada's K to 12 publishing community and industry, I urge the committee to make the technical amendment we are proposing. This will clarify that fair dealing for educational purposes does not eliminate the need to provide fair compensation for rights holders. Let's make it clear under the law that fair dealing is not free dealing.

Failure to provide a technical amendment that protects copyrighted works will imperil the availability of resources created in direct response to the needs of Canadian school children, as determined by the curriculum. The capacity of the Canadian publishing community to share stories and communicate the values, culture, and history of Canada is at serious risk if the current exception goes unamended. Our market will be harmed.

The potential for devastating unintended consequences is very real. In the long run, it's not just the authors, content creators, and publishers in Canada who will suffer, but also the Canadian students and educators we serve.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Nordal.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian Publishers' Council for 10 minutes.

[Jacqueline Hushion, Executive Director, External Relations, Legal and Government Affairs, Canadian Publishers' Council]

Thank you.

My name is Jacqueline Hushion, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Publishers' Council. We represent the interests of companies that publish books and digital and other electronic media for college and university students and faculty, for elementary and secondary schools, students, and teachers, and for the professional and reference markets in law, medicine, and accounting, as well as the general interest non-fiction and fiction for children and adults found in Canada's retail marketplace and in all types of libraries.

Together, the members of the Educational Resources Council and our association employ more than 4,500 Canadians. If you factor that up to include other associations in Canada, and ANEL, which was before you the other day, that comes to 9,700 jobs. Some of you have probably seen this document I have here. It has been making its way around lately. In the overall sector to which we belong, those 9,700 jobs factor up to 85,000 jobs at the end of the day.

Our own members invested $75 million in production and manufacture of print. Make no mistake about it, print is still the lion's share of the demand from the marketplace, and our members have to respond to what the marketplace wants. As well, in 2011, our members published 8,000 titles in print and made more than 18,000 Canadian titles available in electronic format—18,000. Our members invested $35 million in the marketing of Canadian print and digital works and paid $50 million in publishing advances and royalties to Canada's authors.

That's what's potentially at stake. Sound copyright that protects the marketplace for copyright works is the spine of the publishing industry's body of work in every country in the world.

Thank you.

Go ahead, David.

[David Swail, President and Chief Executive Officer, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Canadian Publishers' Council]

Thank you, Jackie.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to be here this morning.

My name is David Swail. I'm the president and CEO of McGraw-Hill Ryerson, which is a K to 12 and post-secondary and professional publisher, based in Whitney, Ontario.

I'm going to focus my comments this morning—and this won't surprise any of you, I don't expect—on fair dealing, so I'll be echoing some of the themes you've heard already from my colleagues here.

In our view, the education exception for fair dealing is the most significant new element of Bill C-11 that has the greatest potential for impact on our business. Secondly, and importantly for the committee, it's also the aspect of the bill that we think is most easily and simply amended to satisfy all of the stakeholders I'll be speaking about in the next few minutes.

What I'd like to do, if I may, is to tell my story in three parts.

The first part is about the history of our business. I'm not going to go back to Confederation, but I'd like to talk about the last few decades in our business and focus particularly on the higher education sector. Greg Nordal has spoken very eloquently about the K to 12 space, where we're also very active, but I'm going to focus a little on higher education.

The last several decades in our business have been a fantastic opportunity for publishers in this country in the education sector to develop materials to address the Canadian marketplace specifically. If you look at any of our graphs, you'll see that all of our Canadian content opportunities have been in a wonderful growth mode—and by “wonderful”, I mean this is a mature market, so I'm talking about 3%, 4%, maybe 5% growth, but growth nonetheless—while at the same time, demand for imported products, which principally come from the United States, has been waning.

Where we've found our opportunity, and where our investment has been directed, is in response to the market's demand very specifically for Canadian content. That is equally true in the higher education space, as it is, as Greg mentioned, in the K to 12 space. So it's very, very focused on Canadian resources and meeting customer demands in the education sector, among teachers, instructors, and students, of course, for that kind of material.

What that has meant for us over that period of time is continued investment, not only in resources, but also in some of the numbers that Jackie shared, for instance, employment. There's been significant investment across what we like to think of as a true ecosystem of contributors to our business: from writers to photographers to editors to illustrators to designers to printers to distributors—an entire business built around providing resources to our customer base.

We have come to the point today where we're a significant partner with our customers in education, in all realms—from K all the way through post-secondary, where we're a significant employer. We're a significant investor in the development of Canadian materials.

We like to think that Canada as a country and the students across the country are much better off for the work we have done. That applies equally in K to 12, post-secondary, and also in professional realms. Whether you're a lawyer, a doctor, an accountant, or in any professional realm, significant investment in materials has gone to make your professional lives more meaningful.

That's part one. That's where we have been.

Part two, of course, is where we are today. As it won't surprise you to know, that's really all about digital. We've seen, as I think everyone here knows, a tremendous acceleration in the pace of digital innovation. It's made huge opportunities present themselves to our business. It's placed great demands on our business. But it's also forced us to meet a lot of new customer expectations for information at their fingertips 24/7, supported around the clock, instantly shareable, instantly searchable.

The digital realm we have now embarked upon meeting, and exploiting, if you will, for our marketplace has created tremendous expectations and opportunities for us. It's also meant a very significant reinvestment in the business. At this point in our evolution, we're reinvesting and re-upping the ante very significantly.

As I think Jackie mentioned earlier, print is certainly not going away, by any stretch. But we have an additional opportunity, an additional pressure, put upon us to redirect our investment into new digital resources that are making our print product far more effective. It's more effective in terms of product that can be used to assess how students are performing, more customizable, certainly a brilliant solution from the perspective of distance education for those students who aren't in a bricks and mortar kind of setting, and certainly very adaptable for different learning styles.

The digital revolution has made us far more relevant and created a much bigger opportunity for us. That's really the challenge we're trying to meet in this day and age.

You might ask the question, then, so why not just digital lock, as provided in Bill C-11? Put those on everything you do digitally and life will be good.

I'll harken back to Jackie's point—and Greg made this point as well—that print is still the core of what we do. In the K to 12 sector it's probably 90% of our business, and in higher education it's still probably 80% of our business.

More and more we are providing digital solutions, but they are blended with print. All of you will appreciate that print is a hard habit to break. Even my 14-year-old daughter, who is as tech savvy as anyone, is still very much wedded to her textbooks, so digital locks will not do it for us. In other words, it's not a panacea that will solve everything for us.

Let me come to part 3 and wrap up. Part 3 is really about what we envision Bill C-11 can do for our business in a way that will ultimately protect investment, and you've heard these things from my colleagues this morning also. First, it's about setting a playing field that will continue to encourage us to invest in the creation of these resources, and that means putting the marketplace for the work front and centre and absolute primacy in terms of what constitutes fair dealing.

In our mind, for that reason, the Supreme Court decision around CCH is also not a panacea for the very good reason that it does not place the primacy of the marketplace front and centre. In our estimation, “fair”, intuitively, by anybody's definition, should ultimately mean fair in the sense that it does not impede the commercial prospects for a work, and we find that the CCH decision has very significant shortcomings in that particular respect, so both digital locks and CCH, in our view, are not quite enough to get us there.

We would like to define “education” more specifically. We would like to echo the government backgrounder with respect to what education is and what fair dealing is meant to mean, and a couple of specific issues are, first, fair dealing is not a blank cheque; second, by definition, it does not harm the copyright marketplace. Those are the principles we want to see embedded in a very minor—in our belief—technical amendment to the bill that we think will level the playing field; will continue to create commercial opportunities for businesses like mine, like Greg's, like all the people who compete in our industry; and will ultimately prove to be a better way of delivering better resources for Canadian students.

It will keep investment in Canada, and the other important thing to note is that many of the competitors in our marketplace publish in many other marketplaces. My goal in all of this is to try to retain investment in the Canadian business. That's what employs me. It's what employs my employees back in Whitby. It's what makes the virtuous circle that we have created in our business over the last many decades in this country. This is about ensuring that investment has a reasonable prospect of return in the context of copyright in Canada, and for that reason the amendments that we are proposing are simple, elegant, and meet all the points you have heard from individuals—

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

We're well past your time, Mr. Swail, so thank you very much.

[David Swail]

I'll wrap it there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Association of Law Libraries. Ms. Hemmings, you have 10 minutes.

[Mary Hemmings, Chair, Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Law Libraries]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Association of Law Libraries, L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit, to present its position to this committee. My name is Mary Hemmings. I am chair of the copyright committee for CALL, or ACBD. I am adjunct professor and chief law librarian at Canada's newest law faculty, at Thompson Rivers University. I'm in a unique position for a law librarian. Not only am I teaching legal research at a time of digital change, but I am also starting a new law library when the landscape of the printed word has tilted on its axis. I still buy books. In fact, I buy a lot of books. But I also buy digital collections from many different sources, national and international.

CALL represents approximately 500 academic, private, corporate, court, law society, and government legal professionals working across Canada. We buy legislative documents, case reports, and materials that comment on the law. We provide access to these materials to such people as lawyers, judges, students, faculty, parliamentarians, and the public. And of course we help people find what they want, whether or not we have it in print or locked in a database.

CALL members support these efforts to modernize copyright legislation. We view these changes as necessary to preserving the balance of rights to copyright owners, to libraries, and to the users of legal information in a digital environment.

Today I would like to discuss three areas of concern to the law libraries: fair dealing, crown copyright, and TPMs, also known as digital locks.

Respect for fair dealing is essential to CALL's submission to this committee. Fair dealing and user rights have been discussed by other individuals and associations appearing before this committee, and CALL supports the positions taken by such advocacy groups as libraries, museums, and archives. As law librarians, CALL members are particularly concerned about the fair dealing provisions proposed by Bill C-11.

On the issue of fair dealing, I would like to draw your attention to the 2004 Supreme Court decision in CCH. The library of the Law Society of Upper Canada, whose professionals are members of CALL, is only one of a network of courthouse and law society libraries across Canada, and they were involved in that particular case. It goes without saying that our members support that decision, particularly in its six-step approach to determining fair dealing. We regard fair dealing not as an exception to copyright, but rather as a balanced means of recognizing that limited and fair reproduction is a tool in scholarly discourse. Just as I would lend a book or copy of an article to a friend working on a similar project, the process of sharing information in research and education is not a criminal activity. It is the way that ideas are communicated. We therefore commend the recognition of this principle in Bill C-11.

Having said that, there are other sections of Bill C-11 that appear to contradict the spirit of fair dealing, and in particular the role of libraries. Libraries lend materials to other libraries. This is a fundamental point in our business of meeting the information needs of our users and does not require legislative restrictions on the practice of inter-library lending. Once material has been given to a patron, I am not sure how a lending institution can reasonably comply with the proposal that it must “take measures to prevent” the user from actually making a copy, lending it to a friend, or even dropping it in a bathtub.

Bill C-11 focuses on the use of digital copies. Technically speaking, a digital copy of a book, an article, legislation, or a reported case can be made anytime, anywhere, by anyone. Libraries, archives, or museums should not be held accountable for behaviour that is not similarly policed in book stores or on the Internet.

The Copyright Act should integrate the concept of fair dealing as a user right rather than as an exception to copyright. It should be made explicit that fair dealing needs to be given a broad and liberal interpretation and that knowledge institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums serve a wide variety of institutions.

The CCH decision did not distinguish between a non-profit and a for-profit library. In fact, the CCH decision ruled in favour of the Law Society library, which directly serves the needs of the bar association. Whether or not lawyers make a profit, profit was explicitly considered immaterial in that decision.

On the issue of crown copyright, over a long period of time there have been calls for revisions of section 12 of the Copyright Act. This section relates to crown copyright, and it needs to be explicitly addressed in Bill C-11. The Reproduction of Federal Law Order allows citizens to reproduce federal legislation for personal, non-commercial uses. This is precisely the initiative law libraries want to see in this legislative language. The government has a duty to disseminate the information it produces.

CALL recognizes that producing current government information is expensive, but not as expensive as it once was. At one time, producing and distributing print legislation and parliamentary documents needed editing, typesetting, copy checking, and elaborate distribution methods to satisfy the public demand for access to legislation. Now, digital production ensures accuracy in content, speed in delivery, and a proactive approach to getting government information out to Canadians.

Missing in this equation are the historical legislative documents that are so necessary for legislators and the legal profession if they are to understand how current laws came to be. Retrospective digitization of crown documents is expensive, yet Canadians should also enjoy unrestricted access to documents that inform the present day.

We agree that Canada needs an updated copyright regime that protects creators and rights holders. However, we strongly urge the government not to restrict the public's right to access what should be in the public domain.

Legal writers have urged that crown copyright reform is long overdue, not only in light of the CCH decision, but also in recognition of today's responsive federal government practice. However, crown copyright has been overlooked by all proposed amendments, long before 2005. Our position is that these materials be maintained as free resources and that the government consider funding a program of retrospective digitization.

This finally leads me to digital locks. They have been characterized as a digital threat to fair use, primarily because TPMs cannot distinguish between lawful uses and users. I wanted to draw your attention to the nature of the relationships we have with publishers and library users. At the forefront is not the issue of what our patrons choose to do with the materials they borrow, but rather the ability of commercial or government providers to capriciously lock down legitimately purchased materials. Libraries are now dependent on digital materials. Database providers or digital publishers often have exclusive rights to sell particular content, and libraries have a mandate to meet all of the research and educational needs of their users. It's rarely possible for us to purchase the same content from a competing vendor.

Our users want to be able to transfer content to portable devices for use in courtrooms, classrooms, and in the home, and users of legal information who are not affiliated with a library, such as self-represented litigants, members of the public, and some students—including lifelong learners—are being deprived of access to the law because of licensing restrictions. Such information, previously provided in book form on an open library shelf, now lies on the other side of a digital divide.

In conclusion, we just want to say that fair dealing is a user right, crown copyright is lost in the 19th century, as we see it now, and digital locks are both evil and good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Ms. Hemmings, for your presentation.

We're now moving to our first round of questions, for five minutes.

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here this morning.

Ms. Hemmings, I'll start with a couple of questions to you. Thank you for closing by painting such a stark contrast for all of us.

Your organization wants to extend this notion of fair dealing. You want to turn it into a user right rather than an exception. I want you to elaborate a little on that. As you probably know, we want to focus our deliberations at this committee on technical amendments. I suspect this might be beyond a technical amendment.

Could you comment on that?

[Mary Hemmings]

It's our position that copyright is a good thing. We need to see copyright, because it needs to be a way to regulate the market, and we understand the commercial interests involved. However, we have to also recognize that libraries fulfill a specific function in the world. People and parliamentarians talking to each other will share documents. To have to pay a copyright fee to get it from office A to office B I think is reprehensible. It should be the right of anyone who owns a copy of that particular article to use it any way someone wishes to use it.

Looking at the issue of fair use as an exception, I find that rather reprehensible, quite honestly, because a user right is not an exception; it is a right. That is a positive thing rather than a negative thing.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

At a higher level, then, just elaborate on why the notion of fair dealing is so important for your organization, in your mind, and the broader educational sector.

[Mary Hemmings]

Again, we're going back to CCH, which recognized the fact that there is a different way of communicating, and we are part of the communication process. We facilitate a lot of this communication. To be hamstrung in terms of how we fulfill the needs of our clients probably has a lot to do with the fair dealing issue in terms of libraries and how we function.

The fair dealing clause has been I think very well articulated in this particular CCH decision. We like very much where it went, but we also feel that we are not competing with commercial interests. That is not our intent. That is not, in fact, what we're asking for. We're asking for the ability to purchase the materials, to license the materials, and to then distribute them according to how libraries communicate.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Swail, you provided the committee with some encouraging news about an increase in Canadian content in the textbook industry. I certainly welcome that. Could you explain why that's occurred? What's happening?

[David Swail]

Essentially, it's our way of responding to market demand. I'll speak a little bit about the higher education space.

Instructors and professors in the institutions we serve just find our Canadian-focused content far more relevant for their purposes, whether it's the case examples or something as simple as metric as opposed to imperial. They much prefer to teach from resources that are relevant and that speak directly to their students in a context they can understand.

As I mentioned in my comments, all of our opportunity has come from creating an original Canadian product for that market and from adapting foreign product when we can make minor modifications. The key is to really be able to teach and deliver to students with resources that speak directly to them and that are as relevant as possible. That's why the growth has been there and not in the imported products.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

On the issue of print versus digital, you indicated that 90% of textbooks are printed. Now, a digital version of a textbook is printable by the student, I presume. Is it not?

[David Swail]

It can be, yes, and we make that available to end-users as well.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Given that, do you see that percentage split changing? Do you see the percentage of printed textbooks going down and the percentage of printed digital going up?

[David Swail]

We certainly do, and we've seen that already. We have a line of our business called Create, where higher education institutions can use a given textbook and excerpt specific parts of that product as they see fit for their particular purposes. They can do that digitally. They can do that in print.

I think what's important to note, though, is that as digital products have come along—and my example here shows you print bundled with an access card for digital product that complements and supplements this product—the price of that ultimate product hasn't changed. All of the investment we've made there has really been incremental value we're providing to the marketplace and not incremental revenue we're extracting as a result. We're trying to make ourselves more relevant at the same or a lower price.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Swail. We're unfortunately out of time.

Mr. Braid, that was well over five minutes.

Now we go to Mr. Cash for five minutes.