Evidence of meeting #102 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael McDonald  Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
Susan Haigh  Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Carol Shepstone  Past Vice-Chair, Chief Librarian, Ryerson University, Canadian Research Knowledge Network
Laurent Dubois  General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
Suzanne Aubry  President, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
Mark Swartz  Program Officer, Canadian Association of Research Libraries

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Dubois.

Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Dubois.

Can you tell us what percentage of copyright fees authors normally receive for their content and publications?

Do you think percentages should be established in the legislation, or does the free market work very well?

What percentage do authors receive from the sale of a book compared to what is received by various distribution chain stakeholders such as publishers?

4:05 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

Thank you for your question, Mr. Bernier.

Under a publishing agreement, an author receives 10% of the copyright fees from the sale of a book. That should be the standard contract. Unfortunately, nothing in the Status of the Artist Act requires publishers to negotiate with writers. There is no collective agreement, so every case is handled differently by publishers.

As for copyright fees that are part of exceptions, the one related to fair dealing leaves much to the imagination and creativity of the two parties, but it is rarely to the benefit of writers.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Okay.

Does new technology, such as content digitalization, have repercussions, either positive or negative, on authors' revenues?

4:05 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

That is still difficult to measure because the situation is evolving. The good old paper book is still a sure bet. However, there will definitely be an impact over the short or the long term.

Currently, that impact is felt mainly in the way people use excerpts. I am thinking of plagiarism, forms of satire or the commercial use of an excerpt used in an advertisement. We have seen all that. Technology does magnify those issues and makes it much more complicated to monitor the use of content.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Thank you.

A few days ago, we heard from student representatives. They said they were happy with the current system and, if changes were made to it, that could lead to an increase in the cost of their studies. They think that would have a negative impact on learning, which is why they are rising against any changes in this area.

How do you see all that? Should students absorb additional costs to have access to quality material produced by authors?

4:05 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

I don't know whether students should be absorbing those costs, but I don't think so. In any case, our recommendation is not directed toward that.

We represent writers, who agree with students on this issue. We want the material used in educational establishment to be regulated, with a specific cost attached to it, which cannot be the same as commercial costs. More than ever, we need literature to spread in schools and universities, and to be used by teachers and students.

On the other hand, we are asking that the oversight be precisely defined in the legislation and taken into account when the legislation is reviewed. We would like the legislation to define the terms “education” and “fair dealing”. Our intention is not at all to make the content cost more. What is needed is better regulation of content to prevent prosecutions like the ones currently before the courts, whose sole goal is not to pay writers royalties. It is as if it was forgotten that the author is the source of the book. Without authors, writing content is much more complicated.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

So you feel that we should amend the legislation to better regulate exceptions, as you mentioned in your brief. Do you think there are no solutions that could include negotiations with universities or something like that?

4:10 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

Of course, we are very open to coming to the table to negotiate. I'm sure that the Collectives Access Copyright and Copibec, in Quebec, are just as willing to come to the table to open up discussions.

For the time being, owing to the uncertainty in the law, the most likely action seems to involve the legal aspect. We would like that to be replaced with a political route and a negotiation option between user and creator partners who are not in disagreement. All creators want their content to be used, and all users want access to content. I think that is the reality. We just have to work together to find the best way to achieve it.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

So the exceptions contained in the legislation should be amended or restricted, which would have an impact on the jurisprudence. If I understand correctly, you somewhat disagree with the jurisprudence established through the 2012 legislation.

4:10 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

That's exactly right. We agree that, by definition, an exception is exceptional in nature. When we see the list of exceptions in the current legislation, we feel that they do not look like exceptions. Let's say that they have lost some of that exceptional dimension.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Thank you.

4:10 p.m.

President, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Suzanne Aubry

Mr. Bernier, in closing, I would like to say that the term “education” in section 29 should be better defined, so as to prevent the misuse of content. That is one of our recommendations.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Great. Your report is very concise and explicit, and it will help us a great deal in our work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much.

Mr. Masse.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the delegations for being here today.

It is interesting that one of the positions the government and the minister could take at the end of the day is to do nothing. This is just a statutory review. There have been no proposed amendments to the legislation. No regulatory changes have been made. There are some court challenges right now to a couple of cases.

Mr. Swartz, what happens in your field, or just as a general thing, if nothing changes and we continue the status quo, aside from maybe court interventions? What are the pros and cons of those situations? This is one of the potential outcomes of all of this work. Even if there is an intent to make some changes, our time frame in Parliament is starting to become constrained, although we don't have an election directly looming. It takes time to do this review. Ministers will evaluate that review and then submit legislation. So if it's outside the regulatory framework.... That they has to pass in the House of Commons and the Senate prior to the next election.

4:10 p.m.

Mark Swartz Program Officer, Canadian Association of Research Libraries

From my perspective, if nothing changes, universities will continue to manage copyright effectively and responsibly. We will continue to use the fair-dealing guidelines and policies we have in place, the 10% guideline you are familiar with, and continue to offer services to aid instructors in the responsible management of copyright. Many institutions now offer what are called “syllabus services”, which within libraries are called “electronic reserve services”. With those services, individual faculty members or instructors submit their reading lists to staff, and each item is vetted and then made available to students. Frequently, library licences are responsible for a big chunk of the stuff being made available to students.

In his remarks, Michael mentioned open educational resources. Anything that's available by open access, or even openly available on the web, is made available in that way. We also apply fair dealing, and if anything falls outside of it, we'll purchase it in e-book form in our library or we'll buy a transactional licence. There is also still print reserve, so if you can't purchase a transactional licence and it doesn't fall under fair dealing, we will put it on print reserve and students will have to come to check it out of the library. From our perspective, that's what we would continue to do. That is the good part.

As for the things we would change, there are a lot of things that are causing issues for libraries in relation to digital disruption. As mentioned, a lot of the stuff we're collecting has shifted from individual purchases of items to licences. Most of the things in a library are governed by licensing agreements. We don't have a lot of the exceptions that we would like to be available for those things. In our forthcoming brief, hopefully we will be able to discuss a few of those ideas.

4:15 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations

Michael McDonald

For us fundamentally, again, there is probably going to be a legal decision that will have an impact on the nature of how fair dealing gets interpreted currently. This obviously has a significant impact on how this act will be interpreted into the future. Without a statutory decision, there is still going to be some action that will have an impact on how everyone on this side of the table will be interpreting their rights, moving forward.

On the positive side, we do think we are in a situation that has been generally beneficial to the educational material that's being provided to students. Real growth in places such as open educational resources across the country is something that you're going to see more investment in, and I do stress this. You just saw the investments in eCampusOntario this year. These are places that provide direct supports to creators to make materials that are going to be in an open format. These are things that you're seeing pioneered. Other jurisdictions are going to consider this. Open access journals, especially in a lot of the STEM fields, are dominant in discussions.

It's important also to take from this that it will have a different impact on the different content. We might be talking about, at times, a poem, but we might also be talking about scientific research or legal research. This does have significantly different impacts in all those different cases. We think it's something that overall is going to have a trend towards the positive, and in the instances where, and we fundamentally agree, creators need to be compensated, other mechanisms can be found to do so. We really support that.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Ms. Shepstone.

4:15 p.m.

Past Vice-Chair, Chief Librarian, Ryerson University, Canadian Research Knowledge Network

Carol Shepstone

From the perspective of CRKN, we would continue to license material where possible and to move forward with open access collaborations and initiatives and really invest time and energy in that work.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Ms. Aubry, I'm not sure who wants to answer on your behalf.

4:15 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

May I ask you to rephrase your question? I think I lost something in the interpretation.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Right now, we're doing a review. The review might not have any changes. What will transpire for you from that, or what's at risk if there aren't any changes? There's a high probability that there will not be any changes. It might just be left to some legal cases and some regulatory alterations.

4:15 p.m.

General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Laurent Dubois

If no changes were made and everything was resolved in court, it is clear to us that the profession of writer would become very difficult to exercise in our country. The risks related to that concern cultural diversity. Do we want all cultural products to come from abroad? Do we want available books to come from Europe, and more likely from the United States?

It is important to understand that, if authors of books cannot be properly compensated, that profession could no longer interest anyone. There will always be academics, researchers and people with several professions who will continue to write and contribute to a general database, but artistic and creative writers who throw themselves into a literary work are likely to disappear.

4:15 p.m.

President, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)

Suzanne Aubry

I would like to complete the answer.

The spirit of the Copyright Act is to defend creators; it is a piece of legislation on authors' rights. In 2012, with all the exceptions that were introduced, it became a piece of legislation that favours users.

Once again, we have nothing against users. On the contrary, we want our work to be known and read. That's very important. However, we want that to be done fairly.

Here's what I would add. A speaker said that grants could be used to compensate authors for their work. However, we know that grants are not given to all authors, since only a third of them receive grants. To earn a decent living with their pen, writers cannot rely solely on grants.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much.

Mr. Baylis, you have seven minutes.