Evidence of meeting #118 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 copyright.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Swail  President, Canadian Publishers' Council
John Hinds  President and Chief Executive Officer, News Media Canada
Jean-Philippe Béland  Vice-President, Wikimedia Canada

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

We have the numbers. There's a consumer price index and let's say that our spend is going up by 10% and nothing has changed for you. Then you should go up by at least 10%, if you follow me.

5:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Publishers' Council

David Swail

Right, yes.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Now, you had mentioned a couple of things. There's a lack of consistency on penalties. Could you elaborate on what you'd like to see in penalties? Also, while you're talking about penalties, for people taking from the publisher and using without their consent, if I understand correctly, could you elaborate on that? Also, is there anything you want to add about differences between the creator and the publisher? Are you speaking as one voice, or are there differences between you as a publisher representing publishers and the authors?

5:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Publishers' Council

David Swail

I'll start with the last part of that question.

I think for all intents and purposes, we speak as one with our creators, and certainly you've seen the numbers and you've seen the impact of a reduction in royalties on creators' incomes. It has been pretty much in lockstep for publishers as well.

One of our challenges is trying to continue to see enough incentive in the marketplace for writers to actually agree to sign on with us and produce new product for the education sector. We have the same goal of trying to return some compensation for that particular effort.

With regard to statutory damages and the harmonization under the Copyright Board review that's under way currently, what we're looking for there is consistency across all creative sectors, because right now there are higher formulas for penalties in, say, the music industry and other areas, compared to in publishing. The background on that I can't really comment on, but we do know and have proposed to government that a more meaningful and more consistent set of damages in the language in the act would actually be very helpful, to present essentially a more consistent deterrent to violation.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Hinds, you said on a few occasions that you were looking for something more along the lines of the protections the music industry has. I get that. The music industry will be up the next set around. They're not happy at all with how the Internet has been eating tremendously into their income.

Are you concerned or do you have ideas that are better than that? Let's say we were to implement the music industry model and you got the equivalent of Spotify, and you'd be getting pennies: after you write your article, you get $3.10. Do you have ideas of how you'd like to see that?

5:20 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, News Media Canada

John Hinds

As I said before, I think there are some models on that. I think the publisher's right of the EU would be the most effective, in the sense that it would give you complete control to negotiate with the other groups if you want. A hot news exemption would be the same thing. It would protect your content from fair dealing right off the bat for a period of time. I think those would be the ways we would be looking at it.

To a certain extent, it's the negotiating power, really, between the publisher and the aggregator that we really have to deal with. Right now the thing is stacked essentially against the publisher in favour of the aggregator, so I think we need to restore the balance there between the two.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Mr. Masse, you have the final two minutes of the day.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hinds, I'll start with you. Mr. Swail and Mr. Béland, you might also have a comment.

I haven't asked this question before. We've had a lot of artists and authors and so forth in front of us. It's about reaching that balance in what is exposure that benefits you. How do we grapple with that? That's one of the things with people, whether they are putting their work on YouTube, for example, or whatever. Do you have any comments about that?

I'm interested in some perspectives as to the balancing act of getting free exposure to some degree and not overexposure. What seeds work that could be purchased versus what is just outright abuse? Do you have any thoughts about that?

5:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, News Media Canada

John Hinds

That's interesting. I think the reality of the marketplace is that there is that balance. People are out there marketing their brand. Whether they're a newspaper...they put stuff out on social media to draw people in. That's how they get subscribers and everything else. There's always that balance.

I think the idea, though, has to be that, at the end of the day, if you're putting it out there, you do control it and you understand the terms and conditions under which you're putting it out there and you have control over them. I think that with so much of what happens now, there is no control. Essentially, in the existing framework, it's put out there, and you lose control and you have no ability to monetize it. I think it's really about bringing back that control to do it.

Obviously, any author or any publisher wants the widest distribution possible, but again, with some balance and an opportunity to monetize it.

5:25 p.m.

President, Canadian Publishers' Council

David Swail

I would probably think of an example in K-to-12 publishing, where authors are almost entirely not name brand or recognized authors. They're working as part of a team. They may be working on only a very specific part of a resource because they have deep subject-matter expertise in a certain area, be it mathematics, science, or any other field for that matter. Their model, if you will, is not such that they have an opportunity to further capitalize on their presence in that marketplace through subsequent subchapters in the next grade 9 math textbook. They have one shot at it and they would like reasonable compensation for the time they put in. A lot of that compensation is based on royalties, which are based on sales. When sales go down and royalties go down, they haven't really gained much.

Even if they have a very successful launch that they are part of, there won't be another way to monetize that down the road in the next textbook. It really depends on the work that goes in up front.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

At the end of the day, I suppose it's like any other business. It's up to the creator to decide when they want to use their work as subsidization for other goals or as a loss leader, as they do in the retail sector by putting their merchandise at the end of the aisle. The control or the decision is always vested in the person who makes that decision for whatever purpose they want versus others making that decision for them.

5:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, News Media Canada

John Hinds

Well said.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you very much for your time.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

On that note, I want to thank our panellists for bearing with us, again through the break for votes. Thank you very much for being here today and answering our questions.

Before we adjourn for the day, I believe, Mr. Jeneroux, that you have a notice of motion you'd like to put through.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for ceding the final two minutes to me.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

You have one minute.

May 29th, 2018 / 5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

The committee will recall that I put a notice of motion last week towards the Trans Mountain pipeline. We're putting another motion on the table. I'll read that motion to the committee:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake a study of four meetings to review, among other things: the overall cost of buying and expanding the Trans Mountain Pipeline project, the costs related to oversight (crown corporation) of the project, and how this decision will impact investor confidence in Canadian resource projects; and that the Committee reports the findings back to the House and make recommendations on how to restore investor confidence.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you for your notice of motion. It has been received.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

I think we'll have the NDP on board.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

On that note, I thank you all. Have a wonderful day.

The meeting is adjourned.