Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

So If you evaluated a process, then the outcomes would be...?

[Scott Robertson]

The outcomes may not be favourable. Consultation doesn't mean that you get to a decision. It's not a veto. It doesn't mean that you're....

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

As you mentioned, with golf there is an outcome, but the evaluation of it would be the process to get to an outcome.

[Scott Robertson]

That's correct.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. de Beer, do you have a comment about copyright and education? You've heard our previous witness, Mr. Geist, talk about it.

[Prof. Jeremy de Beer]

I think much of what you've heard from educational publishers does not reflect the interests of the authors who contribute the works that are published.

As an author myself, I experience first-hand those power imbalances when I'm trying to negotiate with publishers for my own work. I think it's important to separate the interests of the commercial publishers from the interests of authors and artists themselves in the educational sector.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You still have a minute.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mrs. Boucher, do you have a question?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

No.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Okay.

It's very interesting when you talk about the power structures. We heard the other day about the one dollar that an author may get or the small percentage the author does get. Is that a world that we deal with in copyright as we look at it, that imbalance of power?

[Prof. Jeremy de Beer]

Absolutely. I'll give you an example in the context of educational publishing and academic publishing.

Academic authors earn virtually nothing from the work they do in terms of publishing. Oftentimes, academic research is funded by taxpayers through granting councils. Academics then write articles or books or anything else based on that taxpayer funding. The publishing industry typically asks or requires authors to assign our rights to the publisher. Not only that, but the academics are asked to do all of the work in the publication process, the peer reviewing, the editing. Then the publishers sell the work back to us as academics, academic institutions and research funders.

I think that when we're talking about what is and isn't happening in the education sector, and publishing in the education sector, we have to reflect the reality of what's really going on. Much of what you've heard from academic publishers doesn't reflect the reality for vast numbers of authors.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I think we've heard that from both.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That brings us to the end of your time, Mr. Shields.

We'll now move on to Mr. Nantel, who has five minutes.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm looking at the time. It's very late, and we all have meetings. At any rate, I have a meeting at 1:15 p.m.

Since I was expecting Mr. Geist not to be here, I have prepared a document to send to him. If I have the permission of the chair, I will send him the questions I'm going to read out now. I would like to have a written answer to these.

First, would you advise Canadian universities to submit to an audited count of their current copying? I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. If you can have some influence, we'd like to see that.

Second, have you ever drawn any benefit or funding from Google corporation or its subsidiaries, and if so, how much, when and for what?

Third, on October 15, 2013, you emailed the Department of Industry marketplace framework policy branch requesting a meeting. You wrote that you were acting on behalf of a company that asked some questions about the potential applicability of the notice and notice provisions to its operations. I was hoping for a chance to discuss those with you. This one is from an access to information request.

Fourth, what was the company? Was this lobbying? Do you consider yourself to be a users' rights advocate? If yes, who is paying you to do this advocacy? Do you consider it part of your work as a Canada research chair or as a law professor at the University of Ottawa?

Fifth, do you give legal advice to policy-makers or organizations engaged in copyright policy advocacy?

Finally, have you ever advised the Department of Justice on copyright litigation? Do you have a solicitor-client relationship with the Department of Justice?

I will send this in writing to the clerk and potentially to Mr. Geist, and I expect answers.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You went through those very quickly, so I'll be reviewing some of the questions. I'll look at the list.

I'll review them also with the clerk just to make sure that they're in order.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

That's all?

Sorry, I didn't hear you. Were you talking?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

If you want, I could try to answer a number of those questions. If you want to put them in writing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I believe that we are now out of time.

I apologize for the fact that we had a reduced amount of time today for our questions, but I am happy we were able to bring you back into the conversation, Mr. Geist.

For everyone here—all of the witnesses—thank you for appearing. It was really appreciated and helpful to our study.

This concludes the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.