Evidence of meeting #3 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cusma.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Mr. Erskine-Smith, unfortunately that's your time.
We now move to Mr. Masse.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Geist, I'm going to continue. One of the things I was hoping the Americans would have put on the table for us is Crown copyright. They don't have Crown copyright, but now we're in a situation that we're looking at either we accept this deal—there have been some improvements from the Democrats in Congress from the original one that was drafted—or we continue under status quo.
The status quo is what we have now. Really there is quite a debate about whether Trump could even pull out on his own, and then we would reverse to the free trade agreement. There's a whole process in place. There's quite a legal debate about how that would go, but we're left with the choice now as to whether we go ahead, or not.
Looking at the two options, I find going ahead is preferable, but also looking at ways we can ameliorate some of the damages we have.
Would Crown copyright be one of those small things that we can do? This is the elimination—I have tabled that again in the House of Commons—so that public information data, all our studies that are done here that are now restricted.... Canada is the only country that does that, which I'm aware of. Our law is based from 1909 from the United Kingdom and has been updated in 1911.
If we were to abolish Crown copyright to provide more public access to research and other government documents, would that be a thing that at least would have a small benefit to deal with some of the restrictions we have on information and changes we might get here?
11:55 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Right. Thanks for the question.
Listen, I'm in agreement with the private member's bill you have put forward. I think there are many from across the country from a wide range of areas who are concerned about the continued use of Crown copyright.
I guess I would say this. I thought this committee did exceptional work as part of the copyright review. I recognize that not everybody around the table was part of that review, although some were. I would say it provides the road map for action for this government.
In particular, if we are to move forward on a number of issues that I think would be widely recognized as measures that weren't things Canada was looking for, but basically we have to take because it's part of the deal.... Term extension is one. Some of the expansion on digital locks with criminalization would be another.
11:55 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It seems to me that recognizing the need for balance in copyright would suggest that one of the things the government ought to be doing is seeking to restore some of that balance. Crown copyright is one way to do it. Digital locks is another. Full flexibility, frankly, with fair use or flexible fair dealing provision—all things recommended in the industry committee's copyright review—are the sorts of things I think would help restore the balance. I think it would be in our broader interests as well.
We don't necessarily need a trade agreement, of course, to do it, but given that we have this 30-month period, we ought to be using that 30-month period both to get the term extension issue right but at the same time recognize that this has created or this will create a distortion in the balance of copyright, given that we largely are just acquiescing to some U.S. demands.
So it would be in our interests to restore that copyright balance by looking to the copyright review by the industry committee and looking at some of those kinds of changes—Crown copyright, the registration requirement, digital locks, expansion of fair dealing to a flexible fair dealing approach.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
We spent a lot of time on that. There were a few members who were here. We went across the country. We just finished it before Parliament broke. We could use that as a road map.
I did ask a question earlier about our Privacy Commissioner. I just want to make sure of this. Is there any risk in this agreement that decisions of our Privacy Commissioner might be challenged? The U.S. does not have a privacy commissioner. I'm worried, too, that we could have CRTC decisions challenged, as an example. You may not have an answer for that now. But with the U.S. not having a privacy commissioner, I'm just wondering what....
11:55 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a really interesting question. My instinct is to say that, unlike some of the broadcast and telecom issues coming out of the Yale report that would largely be enforced by the CRTC, which I do think would be subject to challenge.... If you put in a licensing system for news aggregators online and mandate that they have to pay levies, that does strike me as the sort of thing the CRTC would enforce, and that would create the possibility of a challenge.
Noon
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The issue on the privacy side, though, and this points to the weakness of our privacy laws, is that the Privacy Commissioner's decisions are simply findings and are not enforceable.
Noon
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think the Privacy Commissioner could issue a finding that ostensibly runs afoul of the agreement. I think the initial response would be, well, nobody has to actually abide by it if it's merely a finding. You actually need a court order to be able to do that, which I think points to an area I hope this committee takes up with earnest in the comings months, which is to ensure we have better privacy laws—
Noon
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
—that include the kind of enforceability that, in theory, might lead to the potential for a challenge if there were an issue that was offside.
Noon
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
For privacy, we won't know until we try to craft stronger privacy laws whether they could be challengeable under this new agreement. Right now it's not likely to be challenged because our privacy laws aren't strong enough the way they're written.
Noon
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As I say, I don't think a privacy commissioner's decision would be challengeable because they're not enforceable.
Noon
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As for what our privacy laws look like, the agreement speaks of privacy laws, but it's very flexible in that regard. It even incorporates some of the lower U.S. standards that we see in many places in the United States as meeting “the standard”.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
That is all the time we have today, so I'd like to thank the witnesses again for their time and testimony.
With that, can I have a motion to adjourn?
Noon
An hon. member
I so move.