Industry Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2018

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you for that really important testimony, so that we could get it on record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Now we'll go back to the NDP. Mr. Masse, you have your two minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For our witnesses from Toronto, I just want to make sure it's clear this is just a five-year statutory review of the copyright change that we've had, and then we will be making recommendations, which will go to the minister. The minister will then have a designated period to respond to us. We're also constrained by a similar study going on with the heritage committee. From there, if there are going to be any changes, they would require tabled legislation, and likely more hearings, and then they would have to go through the House of Commons and the Senate. This is quite a winding tale to get where we're at.

What would you see as some of your priorities for what could be done? I know there's been a lot attention to a couple of items from other witnesses. Is there something, through regulation or in the short term—for example, the enforcement of current provisions—that could be done? If we do not come away with any changes in the short term, we're likely to come into an election, and that would then increase the time for all of this to take place. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to any potential things that would be seen in the short term or through regulation or enforcement of current provisions of the Copyright Act or the Copyright Board, for example. That would be helpful.

[Ari Posner]

I guess I would come back to the notion that we're here to address the value gap. It's a very critical issue, and I think the most important thing that could happen is to have everyone at the table talking about it. It's my understanding that some of the big tech giants and streaming services have no desire to do this. It's not in their interest or necessary for them to be at the table. My understanding is that Spotify, for example, is one company that many artists have huge problems with because of the rates they're being paid. Yet Spotify is at least coming to the table to talk about it. Organizations like SOCAN and their sister organizations in the United States and England and France, all over the world, all need to be able to come to the table with the streaming companies—the Amazons, the Hulus, with Netflix, you can insert any one you want—to look at how things are being distributed in this new era and how we can make sure the creators are compensated fairly for it.

If you're Drake or you're the Weeknd or you're Hans Zimmer, and you're at the top of the chain, you're making money from these streaming services. But there's no middle class anymore, and there's no long game because of that. We're going to have a population of creators that is going to die out pretty quickly.

[Paul Novotny]

May I add something? Specifically, we do endorse what Music Canada is putting forward in its “Value Gap” document. Also, we do endorse what the CMPC recommends in their document “Sounding Like a Broken Record”. There are a number of things that could be actionable points fairly soon. That's where we start, but mostly we want to be part of the dialogue and we have ideas.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

For the final five minutes, we'll go to Mr. Lametti from the Liberal Party.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll turn my attention to Mr. Greco and Mr. Rae.

I first want to say that my doctoral supervisor was the great Professor James Harris of Oxford University, who was blind and was not only a wonderful man but a brilliant scholar. He was a prolific author of two major books with Oxford University Press, plus articles and all the rest of what one would expect in an academic career of that stature. What was truly tragic, the biggest injustice of all, is that technology was just starting to make his life a whole lot easier back in the early 2000s. The last time I saw him was at his house in the U.K., and he had just gotten a new software that was reading texts to him. I used to submit my texts in WordPerfect and he had a machine that would convert it to Braille.

I want to invite Mr. Rae, and Mr. Greco as well, to speculate on what Mr. Rae had said earlier, which is, why? It seems to me crazy that people will not produce documents in formats, technological formats, that can then be easily convertible and easily accessible. If it's HTML or some other format, why do people insist on using formats such as PDF that are locked?

[John Rae]

Well, there's a belief that it's locked. I maintain that's actually the big lie, and I say that for this reason: I get a PDF document, and if I can read it, if it is accessible, and there's a good chance it may be, I can take that document, turn it into Notepad or move it into the drafts folder of my email program, and immediately I can do anything I want with it.

In my opinion, the notion that a PDF document is automatically protected is a big lie.

As to why so much is just not produced, I guess there are those who see it as not a sufficient market. In terms of Braille, a lot of kids are now mainstreamed. Do itinerant teachers know Braille? Do they believe in Braille? There's an assumption that we read everything electronically now.

That's an unfortunate assumption, and it's an unfortunate idea, because as I said earlier, our road to literacy is Braille. I've learned so much about spelling and punctuation by having my fingers go over Braille. That's something you just do not get when you listen to a document, whether it's a book or a report, or whatever. Braille is so important, but it's just not given the priority it deserves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Greco.

[Lui Greco]

If your doctoral colleague were still working today, I guarantee you his world would be much different from what it was when you were in school.

As to the question of why it is still so hard, sir, if I had that answer I wouldn't be talking to you today. This wouldn't be a conversation we would bring before a parliamentary committee looking at revising the Copyright Act. All I can tell you with certainty is that when I fly home tomorrow, if I want to walk into the magazine shop at the airport, all I can buy is gum and candy. I can't buy a magazine that I can read, a newspaper that I can read.

Newspapers are accessible to some extent—

[John Rae]

But not in that shop.

[Lui Greco]

—but not in that shop.

If I could have access to the magazines available in the shop or the bookstore down the street, I guarantee you that I would be spending a lot more money on consuming media. I don't spend much money, in fact I don't spend any money on media, because the things I really want to read just aren't available. Therefore, I consume what's available.

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

Would it be sufficient, in terms of designing some type of legislation here, to require an accessible format and then rely on other kinds of incentives or assistance to allow persons with visual disabilities, perceptual disabilities, or who are blind to then convert the documents themselves, or do we need to do something more?

[Lui Greco]

I think, at source, if the book were made available in a format that could be made easily accessible.... The ideal scenario, the world that we're envisioning, is that I walk into a Coles, I put my $20 down and say that I want this as a DAISY book or as an electronic Braille copy. That's what we should be going towards.

The availability of Victor Reader machines is scarce, and Braille printers are scarce, but they are available. If I had the content in a format that was accessible and usable, as John said earlier—and that's very important—then the publisher or the creator would not incur any additional costs. The devil's always in the details. Let's be honest, it's not a simple matter. The more they do it, the better they become at it; and the better they become at it, the more efficient they are and the cheaper it becomes.

[Thomas Simpson]

I'd like to add that I think it's a matter of equality here. We can go as people who are sighted and get a book. We've provided Braille copies to all MPs. I don't expect, as a witness, that you are all going to now give it to your assistants and say, “Take this Braille copy and give it to me in a conventional print form.” That's just not going to happen.

I don't think it's a matter of enabling people with print disabilities to create an accessible format for themselves. It should just be made accessible.

[John Rae]

There's another aspect to this that I don't think we've touched on very much, and that is libraries. We've talked to you a fair bit about our desire to be able to buy a book, and that's reality. In my case, I have a particular interest in certain areas of non-fiction, but it's very hard to get an accessible version of books on ancient Egypt, or some other countries I'd like to visit, and that sort of thing, whereas fiction might be a bit easier. Just as you have the choice of going to your local bookstore and buying a book, or going to your local library hoping it's in, and wanting to borrow it, we want the same. The more that publishers make that possible by producing their books in alternate formats.... Part of the market is direct sales to us as individuals, but part of it is also, of course, sales to local library systems, and that's also important. We want to be able to make greater use of our local libraries, and this moves in a positive direction in that regard.

I think there may be some need to provide a bit of financial assistance to publishers to really give them a push—not forever—but maybe to give them a push.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

That brings us to the end of our session today. I want to thank all of our witnesses from Toronto and the folks who came in to visit us.

I will remind some people that the accessibility legislation will be held in this room at six o'clock, and you can join me. I'll be sitting on the side, participating.

This is all actually very helpful for that portion. It's been quite eye-opening for me. I want to thank everybody. We have to ask hard questions to try to get some good evidence that we can include on that.

The meeting is adjourned.