Evidence of meeting #4 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
The short answer is yes, but I wouldn't presuppose how to tell artists how they should make money. It's different strokes for different folks.
Conservative
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Glick, thank you for your testimony. It's really challenging to a person who just isn't quite as in step with the pace of the renaissance of technology as you are. You'll have to allow me some space, if you will, and not Google space, but some chronological space, I guess.
I come from an musical background. I used to have a band. We used to rely on the recording industry and associated structures to protect us. Parliament is struggling with how we protect our artists and our musicians, those who have a story to tell, which in the past has been the mirror that has been the Canadian identity. We are what we see and what we hear. We've been pretty proud of what we've accomplished. Also, we've done it from a cultural perspective. Our bilingualism, our bicultural qualities, and our multiculturalism have been the expression of all of that.
I appreciate that Google wants to sort of make everybody happy-ish. I love that word “happy-ish”. It reminds me of labour negotiations, where you hope that everybody can walk away not happy but pretty happy-ish.
What can we do? I mean, we've had Canadian content regulatory frameworks in the past. We've had copyright issues. We've had the CRTC to act as sort of the ombudsman. Out of all your testimony on this renaissance, which I truly believe is a renaissance.... I think Mr. Del Mastro said it went from what you described as stovepipes to smokestacks. In fact, it's like that quantum leap in capacity.
What can we do to project Canadian culture, whatever that means? I don't mean to be prescriptive, but what can we do? What is your advice? You said that all these new voices and viewpoints are going to happen but that the choice is not to be too invasive or intrusive. What is your advice to this committee? Do we continue the CRTC but with a different sort of invisible hand framework or relationship that emerges as the need to establish some general guidelines or that kind of thing? What do we need to do?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
We see a couple of different approaches. Historically, the regulation of Canadian content has been on two fronts. One is the supply side and the other is the demand side.
On the supply side, we've had a system of government subsidies, tax incentives, and all that stuff for the creation of Canadian content. I'm not saying that any of it needs to fall by the wayside; there's still a case for the subsidization of Canadian content or the continuation of tax incentives for the creation of professional content. I don't see any problem with that. In fact, the more content the better, from the perspective of intermediaries. On the demand side, when we're regulating the demand part--that is, with quotas--I think quotas are going to be increasingly unsustainable, frankly.
The other component is the regulation of the open Internet. This is what the CRTC grappled with in its Internet traffic management proceedings last year. It came up with a set of rules that required ISPs to more or less treat all traffic alike. That's the Reader's Digest version. Rules like that are important, because they mean that Canadian producers can have their Canadian content travel just as fast and reach just the same audiences as big Hollywood content and big Hollywood producers. This is why, for example, groups like CFTPA and ACTRA and others were supporting the so-called net neutrality rule at the CRTC.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Glick.
Whenever I hear financial types, people in e-commerce or others tell us that we should not regulate, my first instinct is always to think about Adam Smith. I can hear Adam Smith telling us to let the invisible hand of the market settle supply and demand and that everything will be fine. Adam Smith is a wonderful thinker, but things do not quite work that way in reality, at least not in the long term. That is why we look at things from that perspective.
Even though you start from the premise that government should not regulate or establish too many rules, you say that the government still has a role to play. You mentioned copyright, specifically. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you think the government can do?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Thanks very much for that question.
First of all, I apologize if you perceived my comments to be ideological. I think I was just being descriptive, which is to say that in fact Canadian content is a huge success online today in the absence of regulation, so why mess it up, potentially? That's what I meant to say. I didn't mean to say there's no role for government; there is a role for government.
You asked what the government should be doing, particularly with respect to copyright.
I would think the following: one, expanded fair dealing; two, notice and notice as a system for ISP liability, the made-in-Canada solution that has broad acceptance among a number of communities; and three, a limited implementation of technological protection measures or rules, ones that link....
I don't know how much this committee has gone through. You know, I'm a big copyright nerd, so I live this stuff.
As part of implementing the WIPO Copyright Treaty, a country is required to implement protections for copy control technologies--that is, technologies that prevent copying of works. There are different ways to implement those treaty obligations. I don't think access controls are necessarily an important part of that implementation, and I think that implementing legislation that links the act of circumventing the technology to an underlying act of infringement is important.
For example, there's a technical protection measure on your cellphone. If you break the lock on your cellphone because you want to use it on another network--you want to fire Rogers and go to Bell, or you want to fire Bell and go to Rogers--the fact that you're breaking the lock doesn't cause you any legal problems. It has to be linked to an underlying active infringement. I think that's an important component of copyright reform. By the way, I should say that's not a Google position, but my personal opinion.
I certainly think that expanding fair dealing to allow it to evolve as technology evolves is an important consideration to protect innovation. It is also important for legislators because it will prevent people from coming to you for a legislative change every single time technology changes, which I presume would be in Parliament's interest as well.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
The committee will study all the issues related to new media. The committee will hear from various people. Some of them will not necessarily share your opinion and will probably see themselves on the losing end, to some extent, with Google, either because their work was copied or for some other reason.
Based on your knowledge of new media as a whole, what do you think a committee like ours should strive to do first?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Well, I think a study of the opportunities is long overdue. I suspect that many of the things that the committee hears about are the challenges, and I think it's important to hear from the people who are benefiting from the opportunities and who are embracing the opportunities.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Glick, we live in what I would call a very exciting environment. We live in a world where anybody can be a broadcaster and where anybody who writes a song can make that song available to as many people as they want.
In reference to Adam Smith, one of his famous lines was that supply generates its own demand, and in some ways in the YouTube world, that's very true. People are putting a supply of content onto YouTube and there's a demand for that content. Hundreds of millions of people are viewing it.
It's a challenge to have this discussion about the opportunities that digital technology affords without talking about copyright. Like you, I'm becoming a copyright nerd. Certainly, over the last couple of years, I've had to learn an awful lot about what a lot of people wouldn't consider bedtime reading.
You talked about fair dealing. There's one thing that's very difficult and very challenging. I've talked about the challenges of the CRTC in regard to having been created in the 1960s to create a dedicated Canadian broadcasting market. We now live in a world where you can't put borders around broadcasting because everybody can be a broadcaster, so it's very challenging.
In the world of copyright, you mentioned fair dealing. I think it's important, if we're going to bring in a copyright bill, that we don't have to try to reopen this. Since 1996, when we signed onto the WIPO treaty, we've been trying to get an updated copyright bill passed. Different governments have tried to bring in this bill.
I have to tell you that dealing with fair dealing is a minefield, because there are people on both sides of this. If you look at the issue of fair dealing, how important is it? I know that the U.S. has a system of fair use, whereby you can litigate things and an independent judiciary will determine whether or not something is fair use. But how important is it, in your mind, that any new copyright bill would actually take a look at fair dealing and leave it such that it could be adaptive over time to technology, so that we're not constantly reopening that bill?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
I think it's critical, and I think it's something like this that will help to make a copyright bill future proof, as they say.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I have referenced the CRTC a number of times. I've talked about how the CRTC has been in control of its sandbox, right? It figures out how things are going to work in the sandbox, but what's happened to them over the years is that the sandbox has actually been moved out onto the beach; so people can play in the box, but there's sand everywhere. That's kind of what has happened in the broadcast market. It has become very difficult.
As for the fundamental purpose of any copyright bill--perhaps I'll give you an opportunity to agree with me on this--copyright must focus on illegal redistribution. It must protect rights holders and their right to get value for what they've produced. If you start from that fundamental premise on copyright and look at the opportunity that digital or emerging technology affords, then you can see that putting the two together allows for quite an opportunistic platform for artists to really do well, and not just artists, but any creators of content, deep thinkers--creators of virtually anything. Would you agree with that?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
I think our Supreme Court said it best in the Théberge case. They described copyright as a balance, I think as you're describing it, between trying to get works out there--the dissemination of works--and the remuneration of artists who create those works. Ultimately what you're trying to do in copyright is balance those sometimes competing and sometimes contradictory--and sometimes in a vexing manner contradictory--interests for policy-makers.
I agree that there's a lot of opportunity, though, in getting that balance right for artists--and for everyone, for society.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
You talked about convergence going on and how it's good for innovation, for productivity, and for competition. A Canada that doesn't embrace these things, that tries to regulate, tries to stand against this tide: in your view, is that a Canada that will compete well against foreign nations? Or is that a Canada that ultimately will continue to...? We know that we have productivity challenges in this country. We know there are emerging economies that are, frankly, challenging some of our conventional wisdom about how to operate industry and so forth.
A Canada that stands against this or that doesn't find a way to embrace this technology while providing an opportunity for artists: is that a Canada that's going to continue to lead the world in artistic expression in culture and in the exportation of culture? Because really, if you watched the Olympics, I think you saw that Canadian artists are really...this is a pretty strong time for Canada.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
I think the opportunities available to Canadians to export and get financial remuneration from our rich cultural heritage and tradition are so much greater in this online world because of the power of these tools to produce, promote, and distribute these products at a much lower cost. There are tons of upside for us.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Glick, you said that, above all, we should not regulate, that Canadian culture was in a position to capitalize on this space, these new platforms and opportunities, that our artists and creators were doing well in this environment. How do you know they are doing well?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
If we look at some of the examples on YouTube, we can see that there are all sorts of Canadian artists who are succeeding--by running ads against their music videos, for example. There are Canadian artists who have started up with YouTube channels and that has then led to much broader distribution deals.
I'm focused here on YouTube examples, but truly, in the digital world more broadly, there are Canadian artists who sell lots of music on iTunes. There are Canadian artists whose podcasts are some of the most listened to. There are Canadian bloggers who are some of the most popular bloggers in the world. All of these, to me, represent a form of Canadian success online.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You are right. There are success stories we can talk about, but I am not convinced that mechanisms or measures justify saying that Canadians are really taking their place. That may be the case, but it may not be. I do not know.
On another note, if we are talking about new media, it means that there are older forms of media, more conventional forms. Take television, for example. What is the future of conventional television? Not that long ago, conventional stations such as CTV had a lot more control. Someone who wanted to watch CTV at 6 p.m. knew that the news would be on at that time and that, at 7 p.m., something else would be on, and so forth. Now, thanks to the Internet, we can watch what we want when we want. So people in general are turning away from television. They are using the Internet more and more.
What does the future hold for the CTVs and Globals of the world?
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
If I knew that, I would play the stock market.
