Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Suzanne Aubry]

With your permission, I will complete what Mr. Dubois just said.

At this time, Canada's reputation with regard to copyright is very bad. In foreign countries, publishers and creators associations believe that the changes made to the law in 2012 were to be disadvantage of creators and gave users disproportionate advantages.

I think that Canada must provide an example. The revision we are doing will give us the opportunity of making some simple changes which would have enormous positive outcomes for creators in Canada.

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

Thank you very much. You are quite correct.

I have a question for Ms. Levy.

When they testified, the representatives from the education sector said that copyright expenditures were higher than ever for them. We also hear that the reverse is true and I would tend to believe you.

How do you explain that people have the nerve to tell us the opposite? Is someone lying? Are the figures being interpreted differently?

[Roanie Levy]

The expenses are mostly for the licences university libraries must purchase. That claim that the educational field has already paid for reproductions through those licences, was also raised by your university during the hearings before the judge.

In the case of York University, a study was done and it showed that the works that were being used in its learning management systems and the works that were used in printed course documents, involved reproductions that were made under the fair use regime. We had to compare the licences with the reproductions that were made free of charge. The judge had to admit, like York University, that it was impossible to match up the licences with what the university was reproducing.

What is provided to students under these licences are mostly research tools. What is used in classes are teaching tools.

They're for research purposes, instructional purposes. By and large, the content, which is licensed, is not the same content that is being reproduced on learning management systems and in course packs.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Levy. What you are saying is very important. We hear others saying the opposite and so I thank you for having cleared that up in this very precise way.

Ms. Couette, you mentioned that Quebec authors received fees from other countries but they receive nothing from English Canada. You also referred to the Supreme Court judgment. According to what I understand from Ms. Levy's explanation, Mr. Geist presented the same arguments before the Supreme Court. In other words, these are very intelligent people, clearly, but they are almost suggesting that the Supreme Court ruling was erroneous. Obviously, that is what was raised.

As you also said, statutory damages are ridiculous. They only correspond to the fees that should be paid. Do you see a connection? Even if it is applied, the Supreme Court ruling only leads to statutory damages, which is equivalent to paying the fee for use initial.

[Frédérique Couette]

In fact, statutory damages can be at two levels. First, there are the ones we referred to in the framework of a fee as for access copyright. In fact, the only thing our management corporation could claim if it went that route, is that the universities should have paid. Of course, it is in their interest to wait indefinitely and try to drain us financially.

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

Of course.

[Frédérique Couette]

It's a fact that financially our pockets are not as deep as those of the universities, clearly. We saw that.

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

It's very sad to see public money that should be used for education, being spent by universities defending themselves in court.

[Frédérique Couette]

Absolutely. That money should be used for the licences. You have to understand that the universities are spending much more than those licences would cost them. As I said, it's 0.1% of their annual budget. They can easily absorb the cost of licences, there is no doubt of that.

Also, statutory damages are imposed for counterfitting. That is an amount of $5,000 for all uses and all authors and creators. We are blocked at a certain level on that as well in that we cannot even recover costs. It is of no interest to launch court proceedings.

That is why we chose class action. However, that option was not possible everywhere. In Quebec, there is a way of doing that but it is not automatically used in other provinces. That creates a real concern.

In fact, our recourses with universities are very limited. This means that they have all leeway, once again, to do whatever they like.

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

Is my speaking time already finished?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Yes, you had seven minutes, and it's over.

We'll now continue with Ms. Dhillon for seven minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll share my speaking time with member of Parliament Ms. Lambropoulos.

I'll start with Ms. Aubry and Mr. Dubois.

You spoke briefly about the poor remuneration rate for writers in Canada. Are writers better paid in other countries? If so, what can we do to improve the situation of writers in Canada?

[Suzanne Aubry]

Thank you. That's a very good question.

Today, we're focusing on the situation in Quebec and Canada. However, some countries, in particular the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, which I mentioned earlier, have regimes that enable writers to live on their literary income. These countries also have a social safety net. In Quebec, there aren't any framework agreements with publishers, since publishers aren't required to negotiate with us. That said, this doesn't concern the Copyright Act. The lack of a social safety net is part of the issue faced by writers, since they don't have any protection. In other countries, writers not only have a good copyright regime, but they also have a social safety set. If you would like, we can send you more specific data in this regard.

When we talk about copyright, we're indeed talking about rights. It's ironic that we've needed to fight for these rights for a number of years, even though the goal of the Copyright Act was to protect the rights holders and authors.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

If you could send this information to the committee, that would be very helpful.

[Suzanne Aubry]

Okay, I'll make a note.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

My next question is for Ms. McNicoll.

We all listened to your testimony very carefully. It's always sad to hear that you don't get remunerated for the value of your work.

Has it always been like this? Have you seen a change in the past years regarding this? Has the Canada book fund been helpful to you?

[Sylvia McNicoll]

It has always been a struggle to earn a living. Hemingway had to work for newspapers until he sold movie rights. Now we can't really do part-time work with newspapers.

The key is the 2012 legislation. The licensing fee always acted kind of like a speed limit. On the 401, you're allowed to do 100 kilometres per hour, although you might do 110 or 115 if you think you can get away with it. Enter the exception for education. Now you've made it the autobahn. There is no speed limit. You can photocopy anything.

It isn't just that speed limit: It's the disrespect that's ingrained. It's also the idea that content is free, that a book should be free. Yesterday that school expected me to give them free books. Children came up to me and asked me if I could give them a free book. Yes, I can. I can go into further debt if they would like me to.

Thank you.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you very much.

Have your books been subjected to piracy?

[Sylvia McNicoll]

Yes, they have—always. I was telling the story of this reform school. They had a little bit of difficulty. I imagine they didn't try very hard. They photocopied the whole book for these grade 9 criminal offenders.

These are hard-working teachers. I respect them. I know they're trying to get the content for the cheapest possible amount. Imagine that you had a choice of parking for $30 a day and there was no parking fine. Would you not roll the dice and not pay the $30?

Maybe in this room we're all honest, but if that saves your budget for your children to have something else, wouldn't you do it?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

That's perfect. Thank you.

I'm going to pass the mike over to my colleague.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

As you've referenced, in education sometimes teachers don't necessarily have too many options. There are certain budgets that they're allowed from their principals and school boards. Once they or other teachers have reached that limit, they may not have access to those funds. In some cases, even if it's not entire books, they may photocopy certain chapters or certain sections in order to give this education to the children, because it's the only option they have left.

Obviously, it's not ideal for authors. We realize the importance of protecting creators and the work they do. Without the work they do, these kids wouldn't have the education and the richness they have access to.

Do you see a middle ground somewhere? In what ways can we protect you, but also give a proper education to the kids in public sectors where they don't pay much money to go to school and where there is limited funding because of the fact that it's public? Obviously, private schools are in a totally different category. What would you suggest?

[Sylvia McNicoll]

I think it's just obvious that immediately tariffs have to be enforced. That was never a compromise, to say that you could have an educational exemption and not pay anything. That's full-handed giving them free....

This has been going on for close to five years. Different schools opted out at different times. They believe now that they are entitled. It will be very difficult. They have no knowledge of ever paying for photocopying or for digitally reproducing materials.

We need to get the fines, the tariffs, in place, and then we need to rein in this exemption.

[Roanie Levy]

If I could add something, the system of collective licensing was created precisely so that the entire book doesn't have to be bought all the time. It provides that means of accessing without having to pay the full price of all books all the time for every student.

It's also important to keep in mind—because I think that because of all of the noise we hear about this and all of the efforts that are made to evade having to pay—that we have the sense we're talking about incredible sums. In the elementary and secondary sector, we're talking about $2.41 per student per year. Then they could do the copying of their chapters and their 10% to their heart's content. It's $2.41 per child per year, and the ministers are still not paying.

In post-secondary, at most we are talking about $26 per student per year. It's the price of a pizza. In college, we are talking about $10 per student per year. We're not talking about sums that would bankrupt anyone, that would add any true additional burden on students whatsoever.

[Sylvia McNicoll]

May I add that while it's just a pizza for them, it's my mortgage, my groceries, and it's my car payment. Right now, it's my dental bill.

[Frédérique Couette]

May I add something?