Industry Committee on Oct. 29th, 2018

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Yes.

[Lorne Lipkus]

—so we're still there on the creative side. It's just that it's put onto something that is sold as a physical good.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

My next question is going to be for you, Ms. Merkley.

I was in B.C. as a student when they actually unveiled the Creative Commons. The B.C. Liberal government did that. As a student, it seemed like a really good resource.

Could you explain to me how authors and creators are compensated under a Creative Commons licence? How does that work?

[Kelsey Merkley]

There is no difference in how they are compensated. Are we speaking in regard to textbooks?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Yes, specifically.

[Kelsey Merkley]

Someone has to pay for a textbook to be created. Often, the way the textbooks are created now is either through institutional grants or through the universities themselves.

There is also a branch of study called open pedagogy where they work with the students to create the textbook themselves.

When people talk about the $9 million, we hear publishers say, “Well, we just lost $9 million,” but the rate of inflation of textbooks has outstripped the cost of any student's feasible responsibility. We're looking at textbook costs that are over $1,000 per textbook, and that's one textbook for one course for one term. These costs are just unreasonable.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

The question is how authors are compensated under Creative Commons. Are they not compensated?

[Kelsey Merkley]

They can be compensated through Creative Commons. Creative Commons does not mean that the book cannot be charged for. A book can still be charged for. It's just the creation of the work is made available for free.

Cory Doctorow makes money on his books. It's exactly the same model as a textbook. He creates a book and then the physical book is sold. He sells e-book copies and he makes a PDF available for anyone for free. He is able to make more money as a result because his product is available more widely and people are more likely to purchase the book because a PDF is less readable on a Kindle, on an e-reader. It's the same thing with textbooks.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I appreciate it. Some authors are able to have a wide audience and are able to leverage it and give away some things for free. We've had a number of authors come before this committee. It has not been quite unanimous, but overwhelming that these authors are asking for stronger copyright protection, term extension, because we've seen statistically that their revenues as authors are going down.

We're hearing people say these books are the raw resources that are used for future creativity, but these are the creators, and they are coming here and telling us to please protect their works because they can't make a living off it. If they stop creating these works, then we'll lose a really important value-added industry.

What do you have to say to that?

[Kelsey Merkley]

With Wikipedia and with open content creations, I think we're seeing an additional industry being created that allows for work to be created and for people to still.... I would encourage these authors to look at different revenue streams. We are in a new digital era. The old models simply are not working the way they used to. It's time for new and different business models.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

If we're talking about a medical textbook, though, are you arguing that Wikipedia is a viable replacement?

[Kelsey Merkley]

Wikipedia is written by experts and is accessible. There are many examples of textbooks that are crowd- and community-written by the medical community that are licensed under a Creative Commons licence.

One of the big challenges with Wikipedia is it is currently being written at a too advanced level, not at an encyclopedia level.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have 10 seconds.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Then, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We will get back to you.

Mr. Masse, you have five minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It was going to be a great 10 seconds.

Mr. Lipkus, I had a piece of legislation that improved CBSA detainment, seize and destroy, and it was on invasive carp. In the past when carp came into Canada, it had to be tested to make sure it was dead. They have so-called zombie-like characteristics. When it was packed in ice, it could live up to 24 hours.

To make a long story short, the Conservatives stole and implemented my bill, which was great because the regulation was that the carp have to be eviscerated so we don't have to have people check to make sure they are alive.

Does your suggestion say the same thing? Can it go through regulation? Can you give a little in terms of detain, seize and destroy? I could see maybe detain and seize, but destroy or sending back probably could be through regulation. Destroy might require some legislation.

[Lorne Lipkus]

Sending it back just adds to the problem.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It doesn't for our country. I've seen stuff get into hospitals. I was part of a parliamentary group on counterfeiting and piracy. Stopping it getting into our country is progress. Sending it back to where it came from makes it their problem now. Therefore, I would disagree because stopping is one thing, but then having to be responsible to destroy it is another. That's where I'm focused. Why not just send it back? It's probably a regulatory change versus destroying, which is probably a legislative change.

[Lorne Lipkus]

Leaving aside statistically what happens, I can tell you anecdotally that products that were destined for Canada and were sent back have found their way back into Canada. That happens.

Statistically, I can't tell you how often, but counterfeiters are quite aggressive, and they will find a way to get it back in. Yes, sometimes they will bring it to another country, but if they want to get it here because they have a customer here who wants it, they will get it back in through another port.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With a trade agreement with the port it came from, we could simply send it back. We could notify them that we're not accepting it because we suspect it's counterfeit, is dangerous and so forth. We can send it back to countries that exported it. Most countries have trade agreements or WTO standing with us so we do all those things.

I want to focus on this because a regulatory change means we don't need legislative change, which is probably not likely to happen right now with this time frame, whereas regulatory change could be done in a matter of weeks.

[Lorne Lipkus]

Clearly, any regulatory change that makes it easier to prevent the importation of counterfeit or pirated products into Canada is welcome. Even if it creates another problem, which I've just mentioned, it's still better than what we have.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm not trying to discourage that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that it's about what we can get done here.

I would ask a question to the researchers.

Can we find out whether or not what's being suggested here is a regulatory change or a legislative change, in terms of detaining, seizing or destroying counterfeit items coming into Canada?

[Lorne Lipkus]

Could I make a comment about the destruction part?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Of course.