Okay.
Evidence of meeting #133 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #133 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
President, Indigenous Bar Association
It's the willingness to accept what's already in front of us.
12:45 p.m.
Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.
Thank you.
Mr. de Beer, in your view, how will that clause affect the operation of the copyright system?
12:45 p.m.
Prof. Jeremy de Beer
It will ensure that nothing in the Copyright Act is used to derogate from or infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples, and essentially it will hand over sovereignty and determination matters around intellectual property to first nations, Métis and Inuit.
12:45 p.m.
President, Indigenous Bar Association
I think that's a very broad question. What can the committee do?
In terms of making recommendations, you see it in other areas of law. You see in the criminal context how indigenous courts are being developed to deal specifically with indigenous issues at a criminal level. Why couldn't they do the same for a copyright tribunal that would be set up on indigenous principles with indigenous practices under the umbrella of the Canadian Copyright Act?
12:45 p.m.
Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.
Here is my last question.
Mr. de Beer, is it safe to say that you feel the Copyright Act as it currently stands is applied in a manner that detracts from indigenous rights? Would you say that?
12:45 p.m.
Prof. Jeremy de Beer
In that it's a piece of complex legislation, I don't think you can say that the legislation as a whole detracts from indigenous rights, but the failure of the act to explicitly acknowledge pre-existing aboriginal and treaty rights is a problem.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Mr. Long, let me jump in to let you know that Mr. Geist is now back with us, but with audio only, not video.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
If you want to, take an extra minute, because I know you had questions for him.
12:50 p.m.
President, Indigenous Bar Association
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To answer your question, I would say that if you look historically over the course of the last 100 years in which we've had a copyright act, the record speaks for itself.
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Hello, Mr. Long.
12:50 p.m.
Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.
How are you? It's good to see you again—or rather, talk to you again.
I have one quick question. Obviously, you write a lot; you have lots of published pieces. In one of the pieces you published on your website on the 22nd, you assert that tax incentives are a more effective means than is regulation or cross-subsidization to support Canadian journalists.
In your view, should tax incentives similar to those contained within the 2018 fall economic statement, which were intended to support journalists, be implemented to support artists and authors?
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's an interesting question. I would start by noting that “cross-subsidization” to me would mean implementing some of the proposals along the lines of iPod taxes, device taxes, and Internet taxes, which are cross-subsidizations and are, I think, a problem.
What I took the government to be doing in that case, including with the money that I mentioned is going to Creative Commons licensing, was to say that journalism is a priority and that it will take money out of general revenues to find mechanisms to adequately support it.
I would say that the same applies in this context. If the committee concludes that the marketplace currently doesn't provide enough revenues going back to artists, there are mechanisms to consider in order to say that we want to put money back in.
Some of the suggestions I tried to make off the top, including such things as funding open educational resources that pay creators up front and that give education flexibility in usage, are actually very similar to what the government has announced over the past year with respect to journalism. Similarly, providing support to ensure that Canadian publishers can make their works available through digital licensing would be another mechanism to provide funding into the system that ultimately helps support the market.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
That is all of Mr. Long's time.
We will now go to Mr. Shields, please.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Geist, I'm glad to hear you're back.
Do you believe this committee should not be touching the educational sector, as I would suggest?
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would suggest that I don't think they should be changing the current fair dealing provision. As I mentioned, I don't think it has had the impact that some have said it has. In some ways, furthermore, I think we can take a look at what has happened since 2012 and conclude that what the rules have done is help foster a digital market for the benefit of all stakeholders.
It's still early in the process, but what we have seen is a huge shift to digital, for both education and the publishing industry, which has meant hundreds of millions more being spent on digital licensing. Part of that is due to the changes in 2012 and the broad adoption of technology. It's quite clear that there is more money coming into the system from the publishing side through education since those 2012 reforms.
November 27th, 2018 / 12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Robertson, I appreciated your comments. One comment you made strongly was about consultation. Can you give me your definition of what consultation would mean? We hear the term used broadly. We hear lots of things, but sometimes results are quite varied.
How would you view consultation, with 600-plus indigenous nations in this country?
12:50 p.m.
President, Indigenous Bar Association
That's a great question and something I have had to argue in front of the Supreme Court, which is not easy to do.
I think consultation is basically defined by the parties who are involved in consultation. I don't think you have to put in an overarching definition, saying “this is consultation” and deciding whether or not you have met that standard. If you're in a consultation.... I use the old adage of asking my wife whether I can go golfing: when I've been properly consulted and she has been properly consulted, I either get to go golfing or not.
I don't think we need to find a definition but rather implement the process of opening up consultation to indigenous artists to actually hear them. As you pointedly asked, how do you ever conceive of having 633 first nations develop any kind of a unified approach?
The fact that you go through the motion, however.... Don't forget that part of consultation is accommodation as well. I think that listening to those stories, those ideas of how this could be applied across the regions from Atlantic Canada to the western provinces is extremely important.
To answer your question, then, there is no definition of consultation, but the act of listening, the act of engaging in those discussions, is the consultation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
So the process is the part that's more critical to you when you look at that.
12:55 p.m.
President, Indigenous Bar Association
As long as the process isn't the procedure—meaning that we've checked the box; we've consulted; we're good to go.
If the process is meaningful and has an engagement tactic whereby people can express ideas and whereby there is some accommodation of what those ideas may be, that's consultation.