Evidence of meeting #9 for Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Okay.
Mr. Freeman, is your solution also to remove the word “education”? Or do you think that we could get the work done by better defining the term “education” or by introducing a test? I am not getting the impression that you are clearly requesting that the word “education” be removed from the provisions on fair dealing.
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
First of all, let me just say that this educational exemption is going to be very damaging to writers. Writers in English-speaking Canada—I know because I'm a former chair of the Writers' Union—are up in arms about this.
Other than really totally removing it, I don't know that they're going to be satisfied. There may well be ways of modifying this that make it more acceptable. We certainly would be open to looking at that, but sir, this is going to be very damaging. The collectives are working very well in English Canada and French Canada.
I think this bill should be supporting that and strengthening it.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I agree with you. That could be extremely damaging to authors and people who make a living from writing. Other sectors will also be affected by including the term “education”.
Without going so far as to remove the word “education”, is there a way to restrict the scope of this term by really defining it, making sure that it does not refer to professional training or something else, and by perhaps including the Berne three-step test or a more stringent test? Don't you think there is a less radical way of doing things than removing the term “education”?
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
We would certainly support putting some part of the Berne test in this. The difficulty is that it's all about fairness. That's going to lead to more litigation. We're concerned about that.
Yes, that would help considerably. You know, I'm not a lawyer. I think there has been huge misrepresentation, frankly, in the education sector as to how this is affecting people, the way the existing system.... I have friends in the education sector and they tell me this is a problem. It needs to be clarified. Maybe in part we're to blame for not clarifying things, but when the licences are given, the school teachers do have the ability to copy material and get it to their classrooms.
We think this is good pedagogy, incidentally. There's nothing wrong with excerpting a chapter out of a book.
Liberal
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
I would say that yes, there are perhaps ways to minimize the negative impact of the exemptions being granted.
I would like to stress what you were saying about the Berne three-step test. We recommend that all exemptions undergo this test and that the test be included in the bill so that we can quote it in courts, if necessary. Putting all the exemptions to the test would be in conformity with the international treaties that we have signed and it would be an additional guarantee for artists. This test is better than the one from the Supreme Court.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I agree with you on that too.
If I understand correctly, those are just a few general recommendations proposed by the Canadian Conference of the Arts, but there are more specific ones presented by some of your members.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
For three and a half months, the Canadian Conference of the Arts has been working with its members and other people around the table on this issue. We have been trying to reach common ground. What you see on the table are our common positions on what needs to be done to Bill C-32. Our members, who are experts in various fields, will be making more specific proposals.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I have 30 seconds left, Mr. Pineau. Could you further clarify one of your amendments? You said, and I quote:
Restrict the "private purpose" exception to enabling individuals to make private copies exclusively for their own private use, subject to equitable remuneration for rights holders of all categories of works.
How does that work?
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
The first part is relatively easy. It has to be restricted to “private use”. Right now, it's “private purpose”.
My purpose could be to give it to my great aunt or to spread it through the school or whatever. The language, in terms of legal terms, is too vague there. Private use in the current bill is certainly more restricted and should be maintained.
Conservative
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pineau, you have indicated in your presentation that the major problem with Bill C-32 is that it fails to recognize the existence of two very different kinds of markets. You have said that the bill proposes the same solutions for both markets. When I was reading that, I told myself that it really is a key aspect. It really is a question about striking a balance between creators and broadcasters. And we learned that this had been the case for all legislation on copyright.
You are saying that creators are the injured party. You used the example of the digital lock. Could you tell us more about the imbalance you have noticed, especially in terms of digital locks? We see very clearly that the bill is certainly not built around remuneration for artists. In fact, as you also mentioned, they are being deprived of sources of income.
We are also under the impression that the people who designed the bill think that families are going to buy two identical CDs or they will download things twice if there's a digital lock. I prefer not to start labelling this way of seeing things, but let's just say that it's completely ridiculous.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
I'm sorry, but I lost track.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I am asking you to tell me more about the imbalance you have noticed.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
The problem is fundamentally the same for multinational corporations and artists alike: they want to be compensated for their work, products and intellectual property. This bill is ideal for “big” players who have significant interests at stake and are most afraid of piracy, but are able to protect themselves. So it's not a problem for them.
But the same instrument, which is mainly about locks and courts, is put forward for people whose situation is completely different. As the gentleman said earlier, this difference applies to their market, their work and their industry. These are one-person companies that fall under small business. We are trying to use a tool for big ships on small rowboats, and that does not work.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
You haven't talked about the modernization of the private copy system that would make it possible to extend the royalties currently collected from blank CDs to more modern digital audio media.
What do you think about that?
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
That's where we and our members stand. We are well aware that the well has been poisoned by the label attached to the current system. The logical thing would be to apply this concept to other media. If it is impossible to agree on this solution, I think it will be necessary to find another one so that people are not losing income. Collectives and all small creators will become weaker. They could become famous one day, but they always start in their backyard or their garage. These people won't have the chance to penetrate the market. The others, artists making a bit of money here and there, will not have the chance to grow either.
So we are jeopardizing our creativity. Frankly, I think that it would almost be better to pass this bill. We don't want to hinder the passage of this bill, since it works well for many people who need it. We have no objection to that. In our view, they are also people from the cultural industry. That's why we support them. At the same time, we should not create “collateral damage”; we have to find a special system. There is a degree of urgency in passing the bill. If you are not able to make the amendments I have just described, then pass it for the sake of those who will benefit from it, but make the commitment today to meet again next year, not in five years.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
So do you want us to pass Bill C-32 in its current form?
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
No. The list of amendments is there. Most people will speak to that, and they will even take it a step further.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
If you are not able to come to an agreement on this issue politically, I advise you to pass this because it is beneficial for some people. But we will have to get together next year because this doesn't make any sense. There is too much “collateral damage”.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Do you think it's realistic to chop up the bill and keep only the parts we all agree on?
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
I have to say that it is ultimately a technical matter. Once we have the big picture, perhaps there will be obstacles to overcome. We haven't explored that avenue. I'm not sure whether it can be done or not.
In our view, it is better to continue living in the present state of uncertainty. I am going to continue recording my shows so that I can watch them the next day and not go to prison. We will continue to lose income, but at least we won't be eliminating the $126 million that are currently flowing through the system. It has been proven that these figures are reliable; we have taken a close look at them. Everything is distributed in amounts of roughly $400,000 or $500,000. I don't have the exact numbers; we would have to add up the numbers from the various associations and those who get money.
I think that's what you have to consider. What is good for some is not good for others, for whom things are more complicated. Right now, I am telling you to do what's good for some. It is unfortunate, but you are elected to deal with difficult problems. And let's come back next year.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Is it possible to find a balance between the rights of authors and the rights of broadcasters? I am using the word “broadcaster” in its wider sense.
