Evidence of meeting #103 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 rights.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Association of Canadian Publishers
That study was commissioned by our association to look at opportunities for Canadian publishers delivering content through learning management systems at the K-to-12 level. The scope was much broader than that as we got started on the research and quickly found out that it would be useful to look at a broad range of initiatives that are under way.
In terms of the recommendations that came out of the study, this was looking at initiatives that publishers could work on collectively in new products, marketing, and so on. It didn't address fair dealing. That wasn't the mandate of the consultants who were hired.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I think it noted fair dealing, but it only had the three recommendations.
4:20 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
I'm sorry to interrupt, but that was a national study. I was confused by the reference to it as an Ontario study.
It wasn't a study of fair dealing or copyright. It was a study of digital opportunities in LMS marketplaces.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Witnesses have about 20 seconds each to add something.
Go ahead. I cut you off.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Writers' Union of Canada
No, I'm good.
There's a legal model in the U.K., if you're interested, which is that fair dealing does not apply if a licence is available in education.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
I'm going to recommend, though, that if there's something that you need to add and you don't have time, you can always submit it in writing to the clerk as we're just trying to make sure we get as much information as we can.
We're going to move to Mr. Baylis.
You have seven minutes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Chair.
When talking about fair dealing—and there are obviously two different viewpoints here at the table—the first thing I'd like to do is to get an understanding of how much money we're talking about. I don't expect you to have that answer here today. Would each of you prepare for us, going back to 2004 or earlier, how much money you were or were not making, how much you were or were not paying for Canadian content. I'm only interested in Canadian content.
For example, Mr. Rollans, you said it has cost you money. I'd like to know, year by year, how much money it has cost you.
For the libraries and so on, you might say, “Hey, we're paying more and more money.” If you say that to us, then I'll have to come back and say, “Guess what. It doesn't cost you anything, so we'll get rid of fair dealing.” That would be my recommendation.
I'd like to have an honest response from all of you as to how much, year by year, you are saving, perceive to be saving, or perceive to be losing so that we can put a bracket around this.
Now I'll start off with you, Mr. Rollans. You said you're against fair dealing completely, but I assume if someone had to copy one page of a tome, or something like that, you would not be against it. Is there a percentage or some form of fair dealing that you could work with, or does nothing go?
4:20 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
No, but I would have to say I believe in fair dealing. I think most copyright creators are also copyright users. We're not looking for a world where there's transactional clearance of every use of copyright. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't recognize the rights of a user. What doesn't recognize the rights of a creator is large-scale copying that effectively prejudices the interests that we create.
4:20 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
I'm sorry to say this, but there is, in my mind, no bright line. Every work is different. A poem may be a matter of 50 words, and a textbook—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I understand that, but if we have to write something, it has to be written in ink. I need to have an idea of what you think can and can't work. This doesn't work, whatever is written, so what can work?
4:25 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
What's there in the licences is variously 10% to 20% of a work or a complete chapter. That works for me under licence.
4:25 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
Depending on the sector being licensed, it's 10% of a work or 20% of a work or a complete chapter. Those were the terms in the licence. That's what's been named now in the unfair copying practices.
4:25 p.m.
President, Association of Canadian Publishers
I think that works as a licence use. As a pre-use, it doesn't work.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Can you hold that thought?
Ms. Owen, would what Mr. Rollans put forward work or not work for you?
4:25 p.m.
Chief Librarian, University of Toronto Scarborough, Canadian Federation of Library Associations
I think fair dealing is a public policy issue. I think it is very problematic if you turn it into a bright line. What the Supreme Court gave us in the 2004 case is the structure, the framework, to do a fair dealing analysis. It's complicated. Is it for permitted use, and how do we apply the six factors they gave us? How much of the work...? Are there alternatives to the work? Can you buy it? There are many factors that go into it.
I think this is a public policy issue. You can shape it, but it should remain nuanced because it doesn't work. It doesn't work if you apply it to poetry or literature or scholarly works. I think you need to have it—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Rollans would say it should be harder and cleaner and you say it can't be. Is that what I understand?
4:25 p.m.
Chief Librarian, University of Toronto Scarborough, Canadian Federation of Library Associations
From the framework of public policy, I don't think it works that way. The Copyright Act has the ability for people to sue for infringement, then it goes before the courts, and then you do the analysis. There's a whole framework there that's already in place.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay.
I don't know if, Mr. Degen, you have anything to add to that.