Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Are you calling into question copyright?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Absolutely not, in that we need to strike a balance between copyright and people who have truly created something. Right now, this is a complex issue. As I said, the divisions between creators and consumers are much more complex than they were in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The line of questioning today is really establishing the difficulty for us as legislators in getting our heads around where we belong in this universe.

When I was first elected to Parliament, there was almost a panic on the Hill about digital culture. It was this great threat that was going to destroy everything we ever knew and everything that was good.

At that time, Laurier LaPierre's report came out, A Charter for the Cultural Citizen Online. I thought it was one of the most profound things I'd read on where we could go as a country in fostering.... He wanted to move the discussion from online consumers to our being cultural citizens in a democratic digital world.

Nothing seems to have happened to that report. I've put it down to the fact that it's a “big visioning thing” looking at things in a completely different way, which isn't something we're very comfortable with in the parliamentary realm, so it was put off to the side.

The other analysis of the time came from the famous lobbyist—I won't name him, but I'm sure we've all met him—who asked me if I knew what the Internet was. I never answer those open-ended questions, when a lobbyist asks; I always want to hear what they're going to say. In my mind I was thinking that the Internet might be the greatest possibility since the Library of Alexandria. No, no, he said; the Internet is a highway of stolen goods and child pornography that goes into every child's bedroom in Canada, and what are you going to do about it?

This is, I think, the question that's put to us as parliamentarians. We're good at being reactive, we're good at seeing a threat, we're good at saying that something has to be done. And my concern--you're a historian, which is why I want to hear from you on this--is as follows.

The roller piano was denounced as a threat to musicians and had to be stopped. The record player was a threat to music publishers and had to be stopped. AM radio was a threat to the recording industry that made the record players, and it had to be stopped. FM radio was a threat to AM radio, and it actually was stopped for 40 years. Sony was a threat to Hollywood—Sony was the Boston Strangler of innovation, according to Jack Valenti—and now Sony is suing teenagers to stop the threat to music.

Now, today, we have Google, which broke copyright laws. YouTube was a pirate haven. And then, just this week, the film and television producers said we can't stop the development of BitTorrent, because it is potentially a great new source for getting our movies out. Everyone remembers that two weeks ago BitTorrent was probably the biggest pirate threat in the world.

Where do we come down, as legislators, on the issue of protection and innovation? We're always being asked to stop something. We don't seem to have a framework or focus on, for instance, how do we ensure digital development and not stop technologies that are happening that might end up benefiting our artists?

This is the question that we ask ourselves, and I think most of us are kind of at a loss.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

You're emphasizing two key things.

First is the notion that technologies have been characterized as either a threat or, I would say also, as a panacea. A key message today is that in and of themselves, they're neither. It's how they're used, what they're used for, and so on; that's where we have to get the emphasis.

My sense, at least, is that like everything, they can be used in ways that help us, ways that do not help us at all, and so on. My sense is that all the dire predictions miss the fact that the issue is not the technologies in and of themselves; it's the use they're put to. And I think your examples indicate that.

The other thing I think you're also suggesting is the context of what the economists would think about it, supply and demand. Demand is back to ideas and behaviour: people demanding. If people are demanding, then the supply side starts to react to that. It's a question of trying to think that through in terms of the new media and the examples today.

My sense is that the new dynamic we're really wrestling with is the ease now of horizontal connecting and how we do it. Certainly in the past all the issues you pointed to were there, in the 19th century in those debates about how the different media would trump each other. It has turned out that in fact we're reading newspapers today. They're threatened, but we still have them today. They became popular in the 18th century. When TV and radio came in, no one was supposed to read any newspapers anymore.

It seems to me that the issue is back to how the different technologies fit into people's lives, why they want them, and what they are doing with them. It's about the content of them, how they are using them, and so on. That's the issue.

The focus on the possibilities of use is really at the heart of a lot of the legislative challenges. The actual technologies themselves have been changing so rapidly that this focus, it seems to me, is in some sense less important than the focus on why and how people are using these communication devices.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

To look at it in terms of an economics argument, Clay Shirky, who has written Here Comes Everybody, says that revolution doesn't happen with new technology when it's exciting; revolution happens when the technology becomes boring, when it becomes everyday, and this is what we're seeing with the Web 2.0 world. He identifies it as an issue of cognitive surplus.

For example, sure, on the Internet ten million people are putting their baby pictures up on Facebook, and it's very mundane. But if 5% of that cognitive surplus is building something, it has revolutionary impact—for example, Wikipedia. Flickr has changed the photography industry completely just because there are ten million photos, and nine million might be bad, but one million are incredible. Then there are the genealogical records.

Shirky's saying that we're now on the verge of this sort of wiki building, of everybody building. There's no longer the “great man” or “great thinker” idea. He's saying that this is now going to be the industrial model for development, for research; that we're moving toward this kind of wiki online involvement of everybody in how they're using technologies. Five years ago, we couldn't have seen wiki doing what it has done.

Again, is there a role that we have to play as parliamentarians in order to facilitate what could become a very complex but very phenomenal innovative revolution?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It's such an interesting phenomenon. What you're suggesting there is the new kind of horizontal links between individuals.

Now, rather than me as a creator imagining a contribution or particular project as a stand-alone, increasingly we see a collective effort at some level and see how we're moving ahead not by relying on one brain but by trying to piece together and connect the input of many brains—a collective wisdom, which is what the wiki phenomenon is really tapping into.

On the side of creativity, on the side of innovation, and so on, a lot of businesses—and certainly we at our research council—are increasingly not seeing the great experts in how the organization should move forward as being the president and vice-president; rather, now we're looking to the entire organization, as well as partners elsewhere.

This is a profound change. For two or three centuries we developed the notion of the expert who was going to get great ideas and then feed them out into the world. Similarly, on the economy the idea was to build the great product, and then your key would be to get great advertising to convince people to buy it. Now there's what we call the customer-driven marketplace, where the folks are not experts in a corner trying to decide what society needs, but are out there attentively listening to what today's preferences are, how people using this tool, and so on—actively engaged, such that the consumers, the customers, are now driving, in an unprecedented way. The issue is no longer using advertising to convince people as much as trying to pick up on what those preferences are and how you can meet them.

So it's such a different dynamic. That's why they talk about the flat hierarchical structures now, which really want to call into play the talent, the potential, the insights and perspectives, this diversity idea in which you're pooling from as big a bassin as you can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. We went a little over there.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Mr. Gaffield, for your presentation.

I think what I'd like to do ideally is set two issues aside, one of which is the issue of intellectual property rights and copyright, and say, okay, we're going to deal with that. The government has been looking at that. We've had broad consultations, and I think opposition members as well have been looking at that, and obviously looking at how we're going to address the issues around intellectual property rights and copyright law in general. I want to set that aside.

What I want to talk about is the opportunity that new media presents, because I think that's what you got into, and I hope that's where this study is going. There are those who are afraid of change, frankly, and I think we hear an awful lot of messages from those who are afraid of change. Certainly, new media presents significant change, and you've referenced that a number of times. We're talking about significant differences and so forth.

To steal a line from one of my favourite shows, Star Trek, I want to boldly go forward with this and look at what's possible. I think it's just incredible that we live in an age where anyone can be a broadcaster, anyone can be a recording artist. And anyone can send that message out globally. We're not limited by antennas. We're not limited by frequency. We're not limited by borders. I think it's such an incredible opportunity.

Within that context of opportunity, I'd like to see this committee undertake a study whereby we really analyze the opportunity and we get at how we can give Canada an advantage moving forward with this new technology, with this new media--if it's even new anymore. I think what we're talking about is digital media, and it's not that new.

To Charlie's point, I think in regard to a lot of the things that we're talking about as new, for a few folks in here, we're not as young as we used to be. By the time I see something that's new, somebody else has already mastered it.

What should our terms of reference be, in your opinion, if we're going to give Canada an advantage moving forward so that we're ready to take full advantage of the opportunity that this digital presents to us? I'm less concerned about whether or not we can protect Canada's identity and more excited about the opportunity that Canadians can actually reach the globe with all the talent that we have.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It's so important, because the words you're using--opportunity, promotion, encouragement, and so on--strike me as being at the heart of it.

The way I think about this is those three sides. Definitely on the technological infrastructure, that has to be in place, but the two other sides I like to call digital content and digital literacy--in other words, the notion of Canada occupying and contributing to this global content, the presence on the international stage. I think Canada has a world to offer on that scale.

At the same time, on the digital literacy side, how we access, how we use, how we reuse, how we actively become real leaders, I think that also needs fostering. It seems to me that enhancing the content, enhancing the digital literacy side in the sense of seizing opportunities, promoting, and encouraging, is really the side on which we can get beyond the idea--which I think is really an old-school idea--that we're going to be able to really effectively stop change, contain, homogenize. It's complexity, it's diversity, it's creativity. How can we foster those in the digital content and digital literacy side? That seems to me to be key.

Obviously, we need the connectivity, we need the technological side, but it seems to me that the heart of this is seizing an opportunity for Canadians to really become active on this global new media world stage.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay.

As a follow-up, because I want to be clear about what I'm saying, I think we Canadians are extremely secure in our identity. I think we're a whole lot more than a country that plays hockey and goes to Tim Hortons before we go to work. I think Canadians have a good sense, culturally, of who we are.

I think we're making incredible contributions. I think no matter what genre or industry you're looking at, Canadians are leading in a lot of them. Certainly if we look at music, for example, we have Canadian vocalists, women and men, who are chart-toppers on both sides who are selling millions of copies; we have actors, women and men, who are lead actors in Hollywood but also lead actors in other places around the world.

I think we're pretty secure in that, which is why I'm now looking at this opportunity and saying “What is the next step?” I didn't get a real sense from you, and I guess what I'm asking you is, if possible, to kind of dumb it down so you can say to us “I would suggest that you start by looking at x and move on to y and then try to wind up at z”.

We're at a point now as a committee where we're trying to determine what the parameters of our study are. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? If we're looking to advantage Canada as a leader or at least on the front of the wave when it comes to digital media, how should we be doing that as a committee?

I would like to see this committee come forward with solid recommendations for the department and for the government as to how we're going to advantage Canada, how we're going to put Canada in a place whereby we can really take advantage of this digital transition and really see our own economy and Canadians benefit to the full extent.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

I'm going to turn to my colleague, who will give you a little hint of the quality of Canadian participation as evidenced by an international research competition.

Before I do that, let me say a word in response to your interesting question. I guess the thrust of what I'm saying is let's take for granted that technological changes in terms of speed, of capacity, and so on are going to continue. So let's just take that as a given, that the technology will be able to enable faster, more intense communications.

Then the question becomes, okay, what do Canadians want to do with this? What are some of the directions? And how can we enable and help Canadians do it in ways that fit the kind of values we have around the just society, around an inclusive society, around the kind of being Canadian that I think we embrace? So that's the digital literacy side.

My sense is the technology is going to keep changing, with always something new, but it's all going to be in the direction of speed and capacity. Then the question becomes about use and the ability to use it in ways that suit us as Canadians.

Gisèle, perhaps you could speak to the quality of this.

[Gisèle Yasmeen, Vice-President, Partnerships Directorate, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada]

Dr. Gaffield is referring to our Digging into Data Challenge, which we've developed internationally with partners in the U.S., the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and with a very interesting organization in the U.K. that this committee may want to look at called the Joint Information Systems Committee. This is a grouping of various government departments in the U.K., the BBC, the granting agencies, and other stakeholders interested in this whole area of making new media, making content available, and the literacy issues that the president was referring to.

Looking at the discussion, I would encourage you to look at the work of JISC, the Joint Information Systems Committee, and what they've done. I think the conclusion of our collaboration with the Americans and the British is showing that Canada is positioned for great global success in this area. This was a small undertaking and the Canadians, through modest investments at SSHRC, were really at the lead, despite the fact that I think the understanding is only about 2% of Canadian content is online at the moment.

That's really where the potential is, not just in scholarship but in the interfaces between universities, institutes of higher education, the media, and public-private and not-for-profit sector partners. That's what we're seeing emerge as a result of this. Of course, there are a number of pockets around the country of strength in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We went off our timing a wee bit on that first round. I'll try to even it up. Let's try to stay with five minutes for questions and answers.

Mr. Valeriote, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that very thought-provoking presentation, Dr. Gaffield.

I come from an education background. I was on the school board in Guelph for 18 years. So I always worry about disparities being created between people--affordable, accessible, all these issues.

I remember when we bought our first word processor at my law firm. I paid $12,000 for it. It was an AEG, and I had to have it covered with a glass case because the printer made so much noise.

I do concern myself that this is a possible cause of disparity. We assume that everybody carries these around with them. They don't. We assume that everybody has access to a laptop. The decisions we made at the school board were, “Is it musical instruments, phys ed, or computers?”

I'm wondering if you could spend your time--because literacy is important in the digital age--on whether you think there's going to be a greater gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged because of a lack of access to everything that we assume is accessible and affordable.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It's such an important question.

I think during the 1990s, the talk about the digital divide, which had come out very early, quieted down. People went down another path--namely, it's democratizing, it's an equalizer, anyone can get access to this huge library, you don't have to be in a big city.

That has started to change now. In the last 10 years, the debate has gone much more down the direction of how those who have the skills, the literacy, the access, and so on are really just starting to separate from those who do not. The digital divide talk is back. Now it's suggesting that it's perhaps far worse, even, which poses some really interesting questions in terms of social cohesion, cultural cohesion, and so on.

My sense is that we have to start paying a lot more attention to this. The fear is that is the dream of the democratizing, equalizing notion of access to information and so on...that those who are able to may, in fact, be able to just run that much faster and further ahead.

So it's a big issue.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm hearing you say that it's an issue, and therefore a gap must exist. I'm wondering if you could offer one thought on that. How do we close that gap?

Secondly, do you see broadband as a right?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Interesting; actually, we were having the wireless discussion, and I know cities now that are making their cities wireless and so on as a way of attacking this.

My sense, at least, is that it's become a key issue of social, economic, and cultural integrity in the country now. I'm not sure where to draw that line, but there's no doubt, and we see it in universities and so on, that those with the access and ability to communicate using the new media have a huge advantage. I think this is a real issue for our schools and for our society.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Again, on broadband, I understand that Finland may have just passed a law that broadband is a right. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that. Do you know anything of that?

As well, do you consider broadband to be a right?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Increasingly, I think, societies are embracing the notion that connectivity is essential. On the content side, increasingly, as Madam Yasmeen was saying.... You know, 1% of Canada is on the web. Countries like Finland, for example, are very concerned about that.

Then there's the literacy side. It has to be, it seems to me, an integrated approach in which, yes, we have connectivity, but we also can access and create the content and have, similarly, the skills to be able to use it effectively.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Enough for a very short question and short answer, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay.

These are a couple of your own suggested questions: “What is the federal government doing to help those creating and distributing Canadian content through digital media?”, and “What else should the federal government be doing?”

Can you answer that?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It seems to me that what we've seen—again, my chapters are the history of Canada—is that the federal government has played a real leadership role, I would say starting after the Second World War, in the notion of moving Canada to this knowledge society culture and so on, and investing in a domestic research infrastructure.

You know, when I was a student at McGill in the late 1960s, almost all my professors had gotten their degrees from outside Canada. Almost all the material we used, in fact, was imported. Out of the 22 historians in the department, two taught anything about Canada.

So it's a recent phenomenon that the federal government showed real leadership, saying that in order for this country to really blossom and flourish, we must in fact now create the content, create the understanding.

It circles back to what I said, that place--surprisingly, in the digital age--now matters even more.

There was a book in the early 1990s called The Death of Distance; it said it didn't matter where you were, and we started to go down that path. It turns out now that in fact physical contact is the key and we're using the new media, the digital age, and so on, to enhance and enrich and extend physical contact. If you do not see someone physically on a reasonably regular basis, in fact you stop communicating with them through the new media, and so on, and those connections start to be broken.

That's really interesting in terms of how we now think about communities across the country, how we think about societies, and so on. There's this local-global thing going on at the same time that's fascinating.

Frankly, it was unexpected. We thought the new media was going to make where you physically were less relevant; in fact, it makes it highly relevant.