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.
4:25 p.m.
General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
Publishers and writers; in other words, the collectives that register licenses with Access Copyright or Copibec. Those license holders have lost $30 million in revenue, and that revenue represents the royalties paid out to publishers and writers.
I think you will actually be hearing from Copibec and Access Copyright representatives later.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I would like to quickly put another question to you.
I will ask you the same question I put to the witnesses representing universities and libraries. I would like to know how your royalties have changed since 2004, year by year. That would give us a good idea.
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Oh, well, I'll go with the seven minutes and 20 seconds.
Thank you all for being here and for taking the time.
I have a couple questions in those five minutes, and I may interject to keep some of the answers brief.
In February 2015 an open access policy was implemented that essentially, after 12 months, made SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR publications freely accessible to the public. How was your organization affected by this policy? Also, would your organization support an expansion of this policy to apply to all publicly funded research—essentially research funds that are disbursed outside the tri-council?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries
At this point, the open access policy applies to journal articles. The CARL has a system of open repositories within the library sector that have been developed, institutional repositories, over the course of the last many years. Basically, we were very supportive of that policy because it gives an alternative. It allows the appropriate return on research that we believe should be possible for publicly funded research. So we're very supportive of the policy, and we were able to support the implementation of the policy because we have these institutional repositories. It's always good when a government policy can be followed, right?
In terms of expanding that, we certainly have been very active in trying to say the same thing should be true for research data, as an example. Yes, we would say that all the outputs of research that are publicly funded, if possible, should be openly accessible as soon as possible, and openly at the beginning is always an option for the creator to take. We see a creator choice in there that allows them to declare it open right at the beginning, or sometimes there's a desire that they publish in some of these high-profile journals.
When the policy is in place, it really moves the market; it changes things. It's very important. Absolutely, we would be behind and supportive and helpful in the implementation of such policy.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
We were absolutely in support of the previous government's work of building a forward and open access policy for the tri-agencies. That was something we stood on very actively and we saluted them when it was fully implemented.
Moving forward, in general terms, yes, we would be supportive across the board. Mentioning things like expanding the datasets that are shared allows for greater metadata analysis, which creates really interesting projects and has a lot of potential.
4:30 p.m.
Past Vice-Chair, Chief Librarian, Ryerson University, Canadian Research Knowledge Network
Yes, CRKN would also be in favour. Most of our members are members of CARL or Universities Canada, so this is a positive move and a step forward, I think, in fostering innovation and research expansion.
April 24th, 2018 / 4:30 p.m.
General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
Yes, Mr. Baylis.
I don't know whether I will surprise you by saying that we may have some reservations regarding such a policy.
If it was possible to guarantee a choice for the creator, that would be a potential option. We also don't want writers or the industry we represent to feel that we are against progress. On the contrary, we want to move forward and we want things to open up. Solutions like this one may potentially be implemented.
It will be a matter of clarifying the regulation of what could be implemented, if such a policy had to be developed. We encourage you to regulate all that as precisely as possible in order to guarantee, most importantly, the moral right of writers to refuse, if they wish to do so, their content being made available on those types of platforms.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Quickly then, I do want to talk about TPMs, or digital locks, given that they're somewhat controversial within the education sector. How does your organization suggest that Canada reconcile its obligations in favour of TMs, while ensuring that educational institutions can fully exercise their rights under fair dealing?
4:30 p.m.
President, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
In most cases, protection techniques are ineffective. For a number of years, content has been pirated a lot. That is a major problem for which we don't have a simple solution. This will have to be carefully considered because, unfortunately, many authors are being deprived of their rights. Their work is copied and pirated by users who don't always have bad intentions. They don't realize what impact their actions may have.
Once again, it is important to regulate all this. The main thing is try to find effective ways to fight piracy.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
If you can fit it in within the line of questioning that would be good. If we get one more that would be fantastic.
4:30 p.m.
Past Vice-Chair, Chief Librarian, Ryerson University, Canadian Research Knowledge Network
CRKN members would be in favour of being able to circumvent TPMs for non-infringing purposes.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Ms. Ng. You have five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I will be sharing my time with my colleague Dave Lametti.
Thank you, everybody, for coming and sharing this information.
I hear from the content creators and the writers, and I hear from everyone else, about having a regime that allows for greater access for young people for learning and so forth. Maybe I'll open this up, but do you have any thoughts for us, as I think about the writers and the content creators in an evolving world of innovation and further creation? The creators' work is part one, as I would call it, and other works get created from original content.
Perhaps those in the university and learning sector can talk to us about how you provide accessibility for your students in this regime, particularly when they want to be able to take, use, and create new material, essentially innovating from original content. I'd love to hear from the writers as well around how you see that use in this context.
4:35 p.m.
Program Officer, Canadian Association of Research Libraries
For the university sector, those new exceptions that were mentioned, like the mash-up exception, the user-generated content exception, and fair dealing allow students specifically to take different works, mash them together, and create new works. These can be used, particularly with the user-generated content exception, which is really useful for student assignments, because they can create and submit new works for non-commercial purposes.
We really encourage those types of things. Mashing works together in creating new things is incredibly important for research as well, because research is built on other research. We encourage those types of exceptions that allow for those types of uses, for sure.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
We obviously think this is part of the ability to be innovative in a modern economy. A lot of content generation—you can search YouTube or go pretty much to any kind of material circulated widely on the web—relies on the ability to have a frame of reference that people understand and the ability to recreate and reimagine those things. That can be in the critical.... That can be in the reimagined. We understand that in the academic setting—and this is important—that is a non-commercial setting, one that the person understands is a learning environment in which they can practice this kind of effort. This is much of what modern content creation is. This is much of what, in a field like music, is the dominant form of being able to exchange new ideas. We think this is the kind of thing that needs to be practised. We also think that it does need to come with clear instructional purposes about what kinds of rules surround it. We do think that, when it comes to IP creation, better instruction and more information being available to will be key for them to be successful in a modern economy. That's really what we'd also stress through this, that we're really happy to have more learning about this kind of stuff as well.
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
We could say that, in a way, we agree with what we just heard in terms of sharing ideas to create content, to move ahead, to be a modern society. We agree on that, but when an idea is shared with someone and a decision is made jointly to carry out a project, both are in agreement to move ahead.
Once again, we believe that section 29.21 of the Copyright Act—if I have understood your question correctly, we are talking about that provision—does not respect the moral right. In my opinion, taking someone's work without their approval and modifying it to create content, creative as it may be, does not respect the moral right.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
You raised the issue of moral, and not financial, rights. You are telling us, I believe, that destination rights should be part of Canadian law.
Fair dealing does not affect authors' economic rights. In addition, the integrity of their work is not at issue. According to Canadian law, once the author has sold their work, they are not entitled to decide on its destination. That practice was rejected in the Supreme Court's decision in Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc.. Integrity and authorship are the only moral rights covered in Canadian law.
What do you think about that? Do you want a destination right to be added?
4:35 p.m.
President, Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ)
That is your interpretation and I respect it, Mr. Lametti, but I completely disagree with that. Our moral rights are recognized.
When I sign a publishing agreement, I loan my work to the publisher and I get an advance. The work does not belong to the publisher; it is a license I negotiate with them.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Yes, but we are talking about an economic right here, Ms. Aubry.