Evidence of meeting #134 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 content.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lorne Lipkus  Chair, Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network
Michael Petricone  Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association
Kelsey Merkley  Representative, Creative Commons Canada
Laura Tribe  Executive Director, OpenMedia
Marie Aspiazu  Digital Rights Specialist, OpenMedia
David de Burgh Graham  Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.

5:35 p.m.

Representative, Creative Commons Canada

Kelsey Merkley

The Berne Convention.

5:35 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

The Berne Convention is where it is 50, and we're seeing it increasingly move to 70, particularly with pressure from the United States.

5:35 p.m.

Representative, Creative Commons Canada

Kelsey Merkley

At this point, it's really Russia, the U.S. and now Canada. One other thing I really just want to jump in on, though, is that—

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

One thing I thought was interesting is how Europe's being used as an example for how open they are on these things, but we're also seeing Europe as the front-runner/pioneer on content filters and things like that. Can you comment? It seems there are two different emerging streams of thought coming out of Europe. One is that they're very open to using technologies to crack down on copyright infringement, but then your testimony is saying that Europe is somehow more open. Do you have comments on that?

5:35 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

I think trying to loop Europe into one viewpoint is like trying to loop every person testifying at this committee into one perspective. There are a lot of diverse approaches, and I think the concern we do have in Europe is there's a lot of pressure from individuals.

We're hearing from people in our community and a lot of creator groups that the copyright directive being proposed through both the link tax and the censorship machines that are being put forward in articles 11 and 13 is heavy-handed. There's, I think, a distinction between the policy proposals that are being put forward and what people are looking for and asking for, and I think that's where the division is.

I think that tension does very much exist. There's a lot of pressure from publisher groups to adopt these stricter regulations, but at the same time, there's a lot of push-back, because not only will these proposals greatly infringe on the openness of the Internet in Europe, but they will also have larger international implications.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

That's interesting, because we've been talking about publishers. Everyone thinks it's just this monolithic industry, but I have a publisher in Edmonton who met with me and said, “The only reason I'm profitable this year is that I haven't taken any salary for myself.” We're seeing lots of publishers, especially Canadian publishers, who are struggling.

How does increasing users' rights help Canadian publishers compete in a world where American and European publishers have more rights and are more competitive than our publishers are?

5:35 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

I think that we need to make sure that those publishers are able to reach the audiences that can and will pay for that content. I think that the proposals we've seen put forward, through content filtering and through website blocking, do the exact opposite of that. They make it even harder for content to reach users.

In addition to making sure that we are promoting that content and making sure it's available, we have to distribute it. We have to make sure that it gets into the hands of as many people as possible in the ways where they can pay for it, where it's easy. We've seen this across so many different issues, but I really think, fundamentally, that the tension between FairPlay, as an example, and the alternatives is that we're not going to get people to go back to paying for cable TV. You have to make content available in the way that people want it, in the formats that they want it.

How can we facilitate and support Canadian businesses and publishers in getting their content created and produced in the hands of the ways that people want to actually touch it, and make sure that we're supporting those industries to reach those audiences? If those audiences are there—we have seen it; we've seen it with subscription services—people will pay, and they do, as soon as it's easy. How do we support Canadian publishers to do that?

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much.

Ms. Caesar-Chavannes, you have five minutes.

October 29th, 2018 / 5:35 p.m.

Celina Caesar-Chavannes Whitby, Lib.

Thank you very much to each of the witnesses. I really appreciated some of your testimony today. I'm going to pick up from where you left off on the last question.

In this copyright review, I'm torn between the testimony that I've heard in terms of our need to make amendments versus whether this is the right place to help people increase their revenue streams or their ability to access different markets for their products.

My question is for each of you, whoever feels like answering it.

Do we increase competition or increase access through amendments to the Copyright Act, or is it required that our artists and creators change their business model to be able to access different markets and create that increase in revenue that is currently not happening? We've seen the decline.

Not all at once, guys. Whenever you're ready.

5:35 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

It looked like Michael wanted to speak.

Michael, do you want to speak?

5:40 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association

Michael Petricone

I will just add one thing. I think it may be both. Certainly creators will hopefully change their business model to take advantage of new technologies and the abilities to monetize and reach large audiences. That's a good thing.

I think the one thing that I would caution is that.... Certainly, it's a goal of this committee to broaden competition among Internet platforms. That's a good thing. The whole start-up ecosystem is very dynamic and provides more opportunities for artists and creators.

The route that Europe is taking with these regulations, article 11 and article 13, while well-intended, may have the opposite effect by concentrating the power of larger companies. This is just because some of the regimes, like the filtering regimes that are being mandated, are really expensive and resource intensive. Look at YouTube's content ID as an example. They spent $60 million on it.

Those may be mandates and obligations that larger companies are able to meet, but for somebody who's creating a new company in her dorm room and who has to meet the same kind of obligations, she cannot. That's the kind of result that I think we need to be mindful and careful of.

5:40 p.m.

Representative, Creative Commons Canada

Kelsey Merkley

I agree with my colleague's statements.

I also want to echo that we are seeing shifts in business models that are challenging across.... There was a comment that was brought up earlier about Betamax. There's a company in the U.S. called OpenStax, which is a for-profit publishing company that releases its textbooks through an open licence, but is able to make quite a substantial amount of money and increase jobs. There's also the example that I referenced in my testimony, Lumen Learning, which is also a for-profit entity. It still allows some aspects of open educational content, which does reach the most marginalized students, and it is reaching out. Again, I want to reiterate that it's important to separate the creators of novels from those who are making textbooks.

I want to make a point that I was trying to make earlier around creators reclaiming their rights. Artist Billy Joel, who many of us know and love, has said that he will no longer create any new music as a result of overreaching copyright in the U.S. and the deals that he has with record companies. We're in that complicated place right now where we need both new business models for these creators and also some regulation to help us get through this time.

5:40 p.m.

Whitby, Lib.

Celina Caesar-Chavannes

My subsequent question is around the five-year review. With the speed that the digital age is changing, in my opinion—and perhaps I'll just keep it to me and my opinion—a five-year review is perhaps too slow. What do you say to that, knowing the challenges that the industry currently faces? We're doing a five-year review. We're all sitting here providing input, and by the time legislation comes out, things might change, so is a five-year review relevant?

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

I would say that OpenMedia doesn't have an official position on this, but my opinion—

5:40 p.m.

Whitby, Lib.

Celina Caesar-Chavannes

I'm just throwing it out there.

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia

Laura Tribe

—on your opinion is that I think we are five years now, almost six years in, since this has been another year since the five-year period, and we are debating quite small nuances within the Copyright Act itself. Overall, it's held up for five years, and I think a lot of that is a reflection of the thought that went into making this something that would last, and I think the challenge that I would extend to this committee is recognizing that this does need to last. This is not something that can exist just on the ecosystem we have right now. We cannot predict the future, so how can we try to make these pieces of legislation as future-proof as possible to be flexible for the new technology that comes up as well as the new challenges that arise? That's a big challenge, and you have a large task in front of you.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Yes, we know.

For the final two minutes of the day, Mr. Masse, take it home.

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to finish with what Mr. Lipkus said. It appears that we can't do any regulatory changes. There's no shortcut there in terms of maybe low-hanging fruit. The researchers have come back to me with that advice so far.

Very quickly, if we do not get the legislation tabled, because this is a review, what would be some simple things that we could do immediately? There could be an election before any tabling of legislation. We'd have to get it back from the minister, from the review, and it would have to go through the Senate and so forth. Really quickly, what are the things that we could do in the short term?

5:45 p.m.

Representative, Creative Commons Canada

Kelsey Merkley

Make articles that are produced by the Canadian government publicly available immediately on publication, either through a Creative Commons licence or releasing it to a public domain.

5:45 p.m.

Digital Rights Specialist, OpenMedia

Marie Aspiazu

From my end, I would say reject FairPlay Canada's website-blocking proposal, at least as part of this review. Thank you.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Lipkus.

5:45 p.m.

Chair, Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network

Lorne Lipkus

I'm not sure, other than what we talked about, that you can do something without legislation.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Okay.

Is there any advice from Washington?

5:45 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association

Michael Petricone

Yes. Enable innovators and enable start-ups, as that's where the dynamism comes from, and avoid website blocking.