Industry Committee on April 26th, 2018

[Kate Edwards]

If I might also quote from Broadview's submission. Leslie Dema, the president, says:

The rise of copying as a substitute for the purchase of original works has caused a steep decline in Canadian sales revenue at Broadview Press. 55% of our revenue came from Canadian sales in 2013; this has dropped steadily, with only 41% of our revenue coming from Canadian sales in 2017.

If you read the brief, you will see that they have shifted their focus to the American market despite being very committed to Canadian authors and Canadian students, but there's not a market here for them to sell into anymore.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Maybe, but their Access Copyright revenue has dropped less than 1%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

I'm sure that exchange could go on for a bit, but we'll move to Mr. Jeneroux for seven minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Baylis' line of questioning definitely echoed Mr. Lametti's in terms of getting a lot of the information that he was looking for. I think that would be helpful for the entire committee.

There are so many questions, but so little time. Thanks for bearing with us.

I would like your opinions around the table here on ways that concrete changes could be made to the Copyright Board, a restructuring of it. What would that look like if you were given free rein to structure the Copyright Board?

I'll start with Colleges and Institutes Canada.

[Dr. Mark Hanna]

I mentioned that we were the patient recipients of their decisions. Their decisions can often have profound impact, especially if we're dealing with tariffs, in terms of the expenditures that the college would have to anticipate. It would be great if the board was better resourced to deliver decisions in a more timely manner.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Sorry, does that mean financially resourced?

[Dr. Mark Hanna]

I assume “financially resourced” would translate into human resources, whether it be better support for research or analysts. I'm not sure what's always causing the delay, but the decision is often pretty significant in terms of the consequences that are hanging in the balance.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

So you mean people, essentially.

[Victoria Owen]

Basically, yes.

The Canadian Federation of Library Associations did submit a brief in the Copyright Board submissions, so we can refer to that and send it in again.

One of the things we would like to make clear is that we are able to purchase content from a number of sources, and we should have the choice to be able to look at where we get our content from and how we negotiate those rights. It is one in a variety of options that are available. Certainly for academic libraries and public libraries, it's one of a suite of things that we can purchase.

[Glenn Rollans]

The question is specifically how we would address the Copyright Board.

We've also submitted a brief, and the first recommendation in it is to appoint case managers to manage procedural issues and codification of case management rules and timelines. The kicker is so that the process can be more efficient. It moves too slowly to really affect, in real time, our ability to produce materials.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'd just note that there's agreement in the room here on at least something today.

[Glenn Rollans]

I'll go beyond that. I agreed with about 90% of CFLA's statement. We're all part of a culture of reading and there's broad agreement, but there are some significant issues.

The second recommendation is to address statutory damages available to collectives to encourage compliance with certified tariffs. At this point, enforcement proceeds infringer by infringer. It's an expensive process. I think Mr. Degen also addressed this. We need a copyright board whose decisions are respected by the marketplace and treated as mandatory as decided in the Access Copyright v. York University decision.

[John Degen]

I would just reiterate exactly that. We have certified tariffs on the books right now that are not being paid, so what is the point of having a quasi-judicial copyright board that makes these decisions if the decisions are not mandatory?

As well, my personal experience with the Copyright Board was being asked to be a witness there in a tariff proceeding. It was a tariff proceeding between the writing and publishing side and the educational side. The writing and publishing side of the courtroom was full, and the educational side was empty because they chose not to show up and defend their position.

I think there is a real absence of enforcement, which needs to be addressed.

[Alupa Clarke]

Ms. Amyot, I would like to know something.

How beneficial have the amendments made to the Copyright Act, in 2012, been for Canada's millions of students? Have the amendments significantly increased their access to knowledge, such as authors' knowledge?

[Denise Amyot]

I will digress from today's discussion.

Regarding knowledge, the major change that has occurred since 2012 has to do with the fact that many sources of information are available. Before, people did not have access to so many documents, films and presentations. We are currently witnessing a dramatic increase in access, for all programs. For teachers, that is very beneficial, as they are not presenting a single point of view from one book, but several points of view, so that students are exposed to various ways of thinking, which often come from a number of different cultures. That enriches education.

[Alupa Clarke]

There are thousands of professors in the institutions you represent.

[Denise Amyot]

I represent 130 of those institutions.

[Alupa Clarke]

Are there any established ethical practices in the sector to ensure that professors are careful about the use of material? Have you surveyed professors to find out how they view the current demands in terms of compensation?

[Denise Amyot]

Yes, we have conducted surveys.

We have been working on this issue for many years. Some of my colleagues have worked on this for years. We wanted to ensure that what we were doing was meeting the legal requirements. Institutions needed assistance to get there. We provided workshops and a series of tools to help them.

Earlier, Mr. Hanna gave an example of what is being done at his college. Mandatory training is provided. People are asked to complete a quiz until they score 100%. That is unlike quizzes we had to do in school, where the passing grade was 60%.

This shows that we are taking the matter seriously. We must never forget that authors are among our members.

[Alupa Clarke]

All my university professors were publishing content.

[Denise Amyot]

Exactly. That is why it is very important to respect creation. After all, we are educating future creators.

[Alupa Clarke]

I have one last question.

The gentleman was saying that there was no competition between those two rights—the right to ownership and the right to knowledge. Do you think that's true? Millions of people are benefiting from the 2012 provision. Do you think you have achieved a balance in the competition between those two rights?

[Denise Amyot]

What do you mean by “balance”?

[Alupa Clarke]

I am talking about the right to access knowledge and the right to ownership.

[Denise Amyot]

What I can say is that we are spending more money. I think that answers the question. I think what is being said on the other site of the table right how is that we must take into account—I think Mr. Longfield talked about this—the fact that

the supply chain is important.

Everything must be considered as a whole. However, only two elements are being considered right now: how many are spending and how many are receiving.

I am an author. I have published content in the past. When I found out that authors were receiving up to 10% in copyright fees, I was envious.