HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 23, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Á

1110

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Paul Bonwick

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

Á

1115

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Brian Boyle (Copyright Chair, Canadian Photographers' Coalition)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Boyle

Mr. André Cornellier (Photographer and Copyright Vice-President, Canadian Photographers' Coalition)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association)

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Ms. Marian Hebb (Legal Counsel, Writers' Union of Canada, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, League of Canadian Poets and the Playwrights Guild of Canada)

Ms. Penney Kome (Chair, Writers' Union of Canada, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, League of Canadian Poets and the Playwrights Guild of Canada)

Á

1140

Ms. Marian Hebb

Á

1145

Ms. Penney Kome

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Messier (Executive Director, Quebec Reproduction Rights Collective Administration Society, Droit d'auteur, Multimédia, Internet, Copyright (DAMIC))

Á

1150

Ms. Hélène Messier

Mr. Yves Légaré (Director General, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Droit d'auteur, Multimédia, Internet, Copyright (DAMIC))

Ms. Hélène Messier

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Marian Hebb

Mr. Don Butcher

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Messier

Â

1200

Mr. Yves Légaré

The Chair

Mr. Brian Boyle

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Â

1205

Ms. Hélène Messier

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. André Cornellier

Â

1210

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. André Cornellier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. André Cornellier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. André Cornellier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. André Cornellier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Â

1215

Mr. André Cornellier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Don Butcher

Â

1220

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Ms. Marian Hebb

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Â

1225

Ms. Marian Hebb

Mr. Don Butcher

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

Ms. Penney Kome

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Yves Légaré

Ms. Liza Frulla

Â

1235

Ms. Hélène Messier

Mr. Yves Légaré

The Chair

Mr. André Cornellier

Â

1240

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Hélène Messier

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Yves Légaré

Â

1245

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Yves Légaré

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Hélène Messier

Mr. Yves Légaré

The Chair

Ms. Marian Hebb

Â

1250

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Don Butcher

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Don Butcher

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 052

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 23, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today per its order of reference of Tuesday, November 5, 2002, for its statutory review of the Copyright Act under section 92 of the act.

[Translation]

    Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, November 5, 2002, the Committee is meeting for the purposes of its statutory review of the Copyright Act.

[English]

    Before we move to witnesses, we have a quorum to look at a motion that was duly notified to the committee at the last meeting. The motion has complied with all of the rules. I think you have it in front of you. Do you need me to read it?

    Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I don't think they do, yet.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): We don't have the motion.

    The Clerk of the Committee: I apologize, we just missed a few copies. It was distributed yesterday, but I'm getting a few more copies in two minutes. I apologize for that.

    The Chair: Could I just read it, meanwhile?

    It's a motion presented by Mr. Bonwick on October 21, 2003:

    “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hereby recommend in the strongest possible terms to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry that they instruct their officials to prepare draft legislation to be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage by February 10, 2004, in order that the government might ratify its commitments to the WIPO Treaty signed in 1997. Further, we would respectfully request that the Ministers respond in writing to the Committee within two weeks of receiving this motion to clarify their instruction to their respective departments regarding this recommendation.”

    There are a few typos in there that we must clear up.

    If there's no discussion, I would like to know whether we can move on to the vote on the motion.

    Ms. Bulte.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, my concern is that one of the recommendations our committee had was to create a new ministry. Conceivably, there could be a new ministry by February 2004, based even on this committee's own recommendation. So I would just insert “or their successor”, so that it's covered, because if there is a new ministry at that time, it's very easy to say, “Oh well, it's not my job; it's not within our department, but it's somebody else.” That way, it wouldn't fall through the cracks.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Are you suggesting that we just put “or their successor ministry”?

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: Could you just get around it by saying “the government”, itself?

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are we discussing the amendment or the motion?

    The Chair: If we decide we need an amendment, then members will have to agree unanimously to change the wording of the motion, if it is simply a matter of wording. Otherwise, we can actually make an amendment, but I don't think we will really need an amendment if everyone agrees.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have an initial comment to make. I do not see how the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can possibly order the Minister of Industry to do anything. I find it rather strange we are involving the Minister of Industry.

    Also, it seems to me, correct me if I am wrong--that if we're talking about draft legislation, that draft bill must come before Cabinet first, and that there are a certain number of steps to be followed. My view is that the term “draft legislation” is too strong; perhaps we should change that to “critical path”. Courts request that sort of thing on a regular basis; they ask for a timeframe. In this case, rather than talking about draft legislation, I suggest we refer to a critical path. Mr. Bonwick's idea is valid. The impression I have from my colleague is that he does in fact want to put pressure on the Department to get the process moving quickly, but at the same time, I don't think that by passing a motion that is unrealistic, in relation to the way government works and the different stages that draft legislation has to go through before it reaches Cabinet, we will necessarily attain the desired result. That's why I think we should be talking about a critical path, rather than draft legislation.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Abbott and then Mr. Bonwick.

    Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): To respond to the comments of the parliamentary secretary, it seems to be very clear, at least in English, “That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hereby recommend in the strongest possible terms...”. We are not instructing the minister to do anything, but we're recommending in the strongest possible terms that the minister herself instruct the department. So I don't see the first part of the concern the parliamentary secretary has raised.

    The second issue, with the greatest respect, is that the way the government works is unacceptable, which is the whole point of this motion. As Mr. Bonwick pointed out in the last meeting, we have been nine years or so in—

    An hon. member: Six.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Six years, or whatever, but it has at least been for two regimes.

    So we “recommend”, which is a key word, to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry--and, as suggested by Ms. Bulte, potentially their successors--that they prepare a draft and get on with the job. Again, with the greatest respect, it's not critical paths and graphs and charts and things like those, but to doggone get on with the job.

    This, I believe, is the attitude or spirit of this committee. Most of the stakeholders, and I'm sure some of the people who are witnesses before us today, are going to be telling us they are very, very frustrated with the fact this is taking so long. People just want to get on with the job.

    The Chair: All right.

    Could I just make a suggestion? We have guests here who have to be heard, and I thought this wouldn't take long to deal with. If we are to have a long debate, then I would suggest that we postpone it to the end, because it's not fair to the people here to wait too long before they are heard.

    I'll give the floor to Mr. Bonwick and Ms. Frulla. Then, if we don't reach some kind of a consensus, I think we'll leave it to the end.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that you simply call the vote once Ms. Frulla is done speaking. I see no reason why this can't take place if we provide three or four months to the department.

    I'll defer to the chair to call for the vote once Ms. Frulla is done.

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I do not share the opinion of my Liberal colleague and in fact support the motion, because at the very beginning, when we heard the Department's presentation, we were told that we could only make certain amendments to the legislation with a view to implementing the terms of the Treaty and that it could be ratified at a later date in order to move forward. In that case, based on the Department's own reasoning, we were already saying last Tuesday--and the same comments have been made here today--that there is no reason why this should not have been done already. So, I support the motion and I also support the call for the question.

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for the Committee, we are in the process of reviewing the Copyright Act, and I believe we will certainly want to review a certain number of important points in that regard. If we bring forward draft legislation without having heard from witnesses, well, I personally would find that… I understand what my colleagues are saying, but I'm wondering whether we aren't putting the cart before the horse. My personal view is that draft legislation is quite premature at this stage. I realize that I'm repeating myself, but my personnel view is that we would be going too far in trying to give that much direction.

    The Chair: Fine, thank you. We have debated the issue and we will now put the question.

[English]

    I would suggest that there are some corrections to be made, so we'll put in a reference to “its successor ministry”, as suggested by Madam Bulte. There are a few typos: “review” should be “reviewed”, and “sign” should be “signed”. And I think the last sentence should read “Further, we would respectfully request the Ministers respond in writing to the committee within two weeks of receiving this motion...”.

    Anway, those are just typos and errors to be corrected, but the sense of the motion is what you have read.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: I would respectfully request that the committee instruct the chair to prepare a letter to accompany the motion, because the motion at this point in time will simply be read into the record, and now the motion must be passed to the appropriate ministers. Could you put together a letter stating that the committee has passed this motion and asking that they please respond within the appropriate time?

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you. I will do that.

    There is just one brief item of business before we move on. As you know, we have a hearing with the CBC, as per a motion by Mr. Harvard last week. We have now received a request for the Syndicat des communications to appear, and I don't think that's the gist of it. The motion had to do with the funding of the CBC.

    If you agree, I don't think this was the gist of the motion: that time to.... I'm going to reply by saying this was a suggestion to invite the executive of the CBC to respond to the issue of the $10 million. I just wanted to inform you.

    We are pleased today to receive several witnesses in a round table: from the Canadian Photographers' Coalition, Brian Boyle, coordinateur de droit d'auteur, and André Cornellier, photographe et vice-président pour le droit d'auteur; from the Canadian Library Association, Don Butcher, executive director; from the Writers' Union of Canada, the Periodical Writers Association of Canada, the League of Canadian Poets, and the Playwrights Guild of Canada, Marian Hebb, its legal counsel, and Penney Kome, chair of the Writers' Union of Canada; from Droit d'auteur, Multimédia, Internet, Copyright (DAMIC), M. Yves Légaré, directeur général de la Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, et Mme Hélène Messier, directrice générale, Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction.

    Mr. Boyle and Mr. Cornellier, vous pouvez ouvrir la séance, s'il vous plaît.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Brian Boyle (Copyright Chair, Canadian Photographers' Coalition): My name is Brian Boyle. My colleague André Cornellier and I are the copyright co-chairs of the Canadian Photographers' Coalition.

    The Chair: As I've been advised by the clerk, we only have ten minutes, so that we allow time for the others. Okay?

    Mr. Brian Boyle: Yes. Thank you.

    The coalition represents over 14,000 photographers involved in all aspects of commissioned photography from all parts of Canada. It brings together the membership of the Professional Photographers of Canada, PPOC, whom I represent, and the Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communications, CAPIC, represented by Mr. Cornellier.

    Canadian photographers are recognized throughout the world for their work. Pictures by Malak and Karsh, just to name two, are prized by collectors throughout the world. We are pleased to appear before you today to discuss the process of reforming the Copyright Act, and in particular to comment on the process that has been followed leading to this review.

    It has been over a year since the Government of Canada submitted the report the committee is reviewing today, entitled Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act. The process of assembling this report included a broad range of consultations and research by officials within Heritage Canada and Industry Canada. Some of those officials appeared before you earlier this week to describe how they prepared the report and determined what issues to recommend for reform and for the better operation of the Copyright Act.

    I want to say at the outset that the Canadian Photographers' Coalition was very pleased to learn that after being rebuffed in the round of reforms that were made in 1997, the key issues of concern that Canadian professional photographers have been seeking to resolve for twenty years have finally been recognized and included as issues for priority action, which the government's report defines as a one- to two-year time frame.

    We have long sought repeal of sections 10 and 13(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 10(2) of the act deems the owner of the negative to be the author of the photograph and therefore the first owner of copyright. It is inconsistent with the treatment of other creators in Canada—for example painters, who own the copyright in their paintings even if someone else owns the canvas they used to create the painting.

    Section 13(2) of the act makes an exception for the ownership of copyright in commissioned photographs. Unlike most other creative works, Canadian law awards copyright in commissioned photographs to the commissioner, not the author.

    These longstanding exceptions have no place in the digital world. The notion of negative ownership as a standard for copyright is outdated. Technology has made this exception irrelevant. The notion that the commissioner of a photograph and not its creator owns copyright, when the opposite is true for all other creators, is unfair and discriminatory. These two relics, still part of the Copyright Act, now deny Canadian photographers the opportunity to participate in a multi-billion dollar Internet market for stock photography. Lack of access to this market costs Canadian photographers, on average, forgone revenue of between $50,000 and $100,000 per year.

    In effect, photographers are simply asking that we be treated equally to other creators and to our peers throughout the world. We also support the inclusion of digital issues and WIPO as priorities for reform. Photography has become a digital medium, and we are therefore very concerned about these matters. We are, like many creators, working in the borderless world of the Internet, so participation in international agreements to protection intellectual property is naturally also of great interest to us.

    We participated in the digital round of consultations that took place across the country and have made our views known to both departments of the government, Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage, and to several members of this House of Commons, some of whom are members of this committee. In addition, we have met with members from the other place.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Cornellier (Photographer and Copyright Vice-President, Canadian Photographers' Coalition):

    Throughout these consultations, no group has raised objections to the idea of Canadian photographers of commissioned work being granted copyright. In fact, a number of groups, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Access Copyright and DAMI©, to name just a few, have written the government in support of our requested changes. The reaction of most groups has been that the government should stop studying this matter and simply get on with it.

    Industry Canada officials have raised concerns about protection of privacy and access by consumers that we have answered. We are anxious to get on with it.

    A year has already passed since Supporting Culture and Innovation was tabled. We are of the opinion that the items on the short-term agenda for reform should be dealt with in legislation concurrently with this review. Otherwise, we will continue to lose ground to our competitors worldwide, and we will miss out on business opportunities that Canadian creators should be seizing now.

    If speculation about the proceedings of the House coming to a close next month and rumours about a possible election next spring are true, this “Section 92” review may not be concluded and presented to the House until a year from now. Two years will then have passed with none of the reforms recommended for short-term action being resolved.

    The Canadian Photographers' Coalition was pleased to learn that following a round of meetings with interested senators held last year, Senator Joseph Day decided to introduce Bill S-20 that would reform the Copyright Act in a manner that places Canadian photographers on a level playing field with other Canadian creators, and with the photographers with whom we must compete in the digital world in which we now practice.

    Specifically, Bill S-20 repeals sub-sections 10(2) and 13(2) of the Copyright Act. As previously noted, these sections discriminate against photographers.

    We are confident that Bill S-20 will be approved by the Senate and sent to the House of Commons in the near future, thus bringing copyright for photographers into line with the rest of the industrialized world.

    We hope that this Committee will also give it speedy consideration, so that at least part of the short-term agenda for reform can be completed within the timeframe outlined in Supporting Culture and Innovation. Beyond the issue of the time that copyright reform takes, we have no quarrel with the process or the recommendations contained in the report.

    We urge the government to proceed with its short-term agenda items as soon as possible, ideally by bringing forward legislative proposals to address the issues concurrent with this Committee's review of the broader Section 92 report.

    Thank you for your kind attention.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Cornellier and Mr. Boyle. I guess your case is quite clear; I think we hear it loud and clear. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Butcher.

    Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association): Mr. Chairman and committee members, the Canadian Library Association wishes to thank the committee for giving it the opportunity to take part in this opening phase of your study on the reform of the Copyright Act.

    At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the CLA is quite prepared to move forward on the basis of the agenda laid out by the government in its report of last October. Indeed, we would like to commend the government for including access and education issues among the items to be dealt with in the short term, as we had advocated during the cross-country consultations held in the spring of 2002. It is on the basis of that agenda, therefore, that CLA forwarded to the committee a submission outlining the particular changes it would like to see made to certain provisions of the act.

    That being said, we would like to respond to your invitation today by commenting on three aspects of the government's report, which we believe have broader implications for the future of the copyright reform process: first, the policy framework determining the organization of the report; second, the policy objectives captured in the title of the report, Supporting Culture and Innovation; and, third, the report's timetable for legislative action, which has just been changed.

    First, the policy framework. Underlining the government's report, and running throughout it as a major theme, is the concept of a balance that must be struck between two principles. On the one hand, there is remuneration and control of rights holders and, on the other hand, access to intellectual works by different kinds of users. This concept of balance forms the policy framework for the government, and led it to organize its report into two main sections, one dealing with rights holder issues and the other with user issues.

    However, a closer examination of the two sections raises questions about how balanced that approach really is. There are 31 issues identified on the rights side, and 14 on the access side, with four of the latter rights management issues arguably belonging on the other side of the ledger. But more important than this quantitative imbalance is the conceptual imbalance. The report itself acknowledges on page 24 that the recognition and protection of rights is the basis for copyright. The supposedly counterbalancing principle is related to the status of limitations and exceptions. The driving force for reform is not that of achieving a balance between two basic principles of equal stature, but rather of limiting at the periphery the maximum extension of economic rights.

    An alternative policy framework for dealing with copyright can be found in Achieving Excellence, one of the two basic documents of the government's innovation strategy. In that document, the government has rightly identified the whole question of intellectual property as an example of a stewardship regime—that is, a policy area in which government, carrying out one of its primary responsibilities, has to ensure that new technology is used wisely, safely, and equitably in such a way that the public interest is enhanced and not diminished.

    From a stewardship perspective, the government's role involves much more than ensuring the ongoing commercial exploitation of intellectual works. It also implies an active and fair protection of the many different groups that make up the public interest. In addition to the rights holders seeking compensation and control, there are not-for-profit creators; not-for-profit intermediaries or transmitters, such as libraries and educational institutions; and not-for-profit users, such as students, learners, independent scholars, and researchers.

    A fine example of the stewardship principle in action was reported last month in the Financial Times. In August, the British Broadcasting Corporation announced that it would making the contents of its vast archive available free of charge to the public, so long as any reuse of that content was for non-commercial purposes. In the words of the author of the article, “But as the BBC understands, it does not live in Disney World”.

    Two, policy objectives. Of the two policy objectives related to copyright, support of culture and support of innovation, mentioned in the title of the government's report, there is actually very little discussion of them in the report.

Á  (1130)  

    Failure on the government's part to protect the many different not-for-profit groups with a stake in the Copyright Act review would jeopardize those two policy objectives, as well as a third policy objective not mentioned in the title, but one that the library community believes is essential to access and use; that is, social inclusion or social justice.

    First, on supporting culture, along with museums, archives, and educational institutions, libraries provide the means for Canadians to achieve personal growth and enrichment. They also play a central role in the preservation of original Canadian cultural content and its dissemination to as broad an audience as possible. Nothing should be permitted, either technically or legislatively, that would impede these not-for-profit intermediaries from carrying out their day-to-day work of contributing to Canada's cultural enrichment.

    On supporting innovation, libraries are also economic incubators. At one level, they provide information to local entrepreneurs. At another level, they are indispensable in the formation of intellectual capital. If Canada is to rank among the top five countries in the world in terms of research and development performance, then librarians will have to continue to be at the forefront, adding value through the selection, organization, display, storage, preservation, and retrieval of publications in an array of formats.

    Teachers and instructors, for their part, will have to continue to be able to transmit information freely on the premises of their educational institutions. Currently, librarians and teachers in Canada face more restrictions than their counterparts in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other major trading countries.

    On supporting inclusion, in its other basic innovation strategy document, Knowledge Matters, the government emphasized the literacy and learning skills that are the prerequisites for developing a world-class labour force. It went on to identify three important new ways by which Canadians could develop these skills, through life-long learning, distance education, and online training. Libraries play a central role in these new ways of disseminating information, especially among those many different groups in society that, for financial or other reasons, may not be able to access these resources privately by themselves.

    For the third issue that I said I was going to deal with on the legislative timetable, I do have prepared remarks, but given the motion that the committee dealt with at the beginning of the meeting, I'm going to ad lib a little bit here.

    While any attempt to simplify the act should be viewed with suspicion—it's kind of like simplifying the Income Tax Act—CLA believes that a clarification of the purposes, objects, and structure of the act, while admittedly controversial, would then enable various provisions to fall into line. I think that setting out the three aspects of purposes, objects, and then the structure will aid the committee.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we hope these comments will help stimulate policy debate as your committee undertakes its review of the Copyright Act. We thank you for your attention and look forward to answering your questions.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Butcher.

    Ms. Hebb.

    Ms. Marian Hebb (Legal Counsel, Writers' Union of Canada, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, League of Canadian Poets and the Playwrights Guild of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

    The Writers' Union of Canada, the League of Canadian Poets, the Playwrights Guild of Canada, and the Periodical Writers Association of Canada together represent approximately 3,000 professional writers who live and work in all parts of Canada.

    Most of our members, sadly to say, cannot earn a living from their writing alone and must have additional sources of income to survive. The average net annual income of freelance book and periodical writers in Canada from their professional activities is under $12,000.

    I'm now going to pass the mike to my colleague, Penney Kome, and we're going to pass it back and forth a couple of times as we're speaking.

    Ms. Penney Kome (Chair, Writers' Union of Canada, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, League of Canadian Poets and the Playwrights Guild of Canada): Our survival as freelance professionals depends on the modernization of our copyright laws to address the domestic and international developments that have taken place in recent years.

    We urge you to keep these developments in mind as background, as you look at the lists of major issues set out in the government's document supporting culture and innovation, and set your own priorities.

    There are three points internationally. First of all, there is digital technology. This presents new opportunities to disseminate our works, but our digitized works are more vulnerable to infringements of both our moral rights and economic rights. Moral rights are at risk because it is so easy to omit the author's name and change the author's words. Economic rights are jeopardized through unauthorized distribution on the Internet and the resulting loss of income.

    Secondly, Canada played a major role in 1996 at the diplomatic conference that adopted the WIPO Copyright Treaty. This treaty is intended to deal with the digital environment in which we now live. Although Canada signalled to the world its intention to implement this treaty by signing it in 1997, it amazes us that Canada has not yet done so and is still unable to ratify this treaty.

    Third, the world is moving to a new international standard for term of copyright, yet Canada has not followed the European Union and the United States in extending copyright protection from 50 years following the author's death to 70 years. It is smart and more advantageous economically for a Canadian author to publish in a country that provides longer protection.

    These are the main international developments. With the overlapping markets of an increasingly interconnected world, Canada must adapt its law to harmonize with the levels of protection provided by other countries.

    There are three related domestic issues. Educators, who find themselves squeezed for adequate public funding, press for further free use of our material. They have proposed that whatever is freely available on the Internet should be available to them free of cost, regardless of copyright status.

    Secondly, non-profit public libraries have become quasi-commercial suppliers of copyright material, without any obligation to pay creators royalties for most of our material.

    Third, there is an increasing power imbalance between writers and publishers that has become greater in recent years, as the assumption is often that new rights should be transferred to and administered by publishers.

    Our organizations are all members of the Creators' Copyright Coalition, which is DAMIC's English-language sister organization. In a submission to you, the Creators' Copyright Coalition has expressed its concern about this imbalance and the need for the Copyright Act to be a tool to rectify this imbalance to some extent.

    Without copyright laws that deal effectively with these international and domestic developments, our economic condition as writers will not improve, and may decline further.

    Now, back to Marian.

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Marian Hebb: We are pleased that your committee is commencing its statutory review of the Copyright Act mandated by section 92. However, we're very concerned about how long the copyright revision process is taking.

    In saying this, we are also concerned that the process at this point has not been what we had anticipated. Section 92 calls for “a report on the provisions and operation of this Act”. Supporting Culture and Innovation sets out the issues, but in our view it does not come close to being a report on the operation of the act.

    There were a number of controversial exceptions in the act in 1997 that significantly affect writers. These include live performances of dramatic works in schools and exceptions involving photocopying in libraries. The government has not produced and as far as we know has not committed to carrying out research to determine the economic impact of these exceptions on writers and other stakeholders.

    I turn now to the “Government's Assessment of Legal Work Ahead”, that is, the lists on page 38 of the English text and page 45 of the French text. Look first at the short-term issues they've identified.

    We emphasize the need to implement and ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Our two main concerns here are to clarify the existence of a making-available right for authors and the need to protect rights management information.

    An explicit making-available right will encourage writers to allow their material to be accessed electronically in a variety of forums, including electronic books, online magazines, databases, and websites.

    Protection of rights management information is critical to being able to obtain compensation for use of copyright material in the digital environments. The term of copyright in photographs is also a WIPO issue that needs to be remedied. We believe that until the WIPO Copyright Treaty is implemented there will continue to be a huge number of people in this country who do not believe that copyright applies to the Internet.

    The clock is ticking on section 7, dealing with unpublished works, which needs amendment by the end of this year, but it is already being dealt with in a bill before the House of Commons.

    We note that access in education issues is a short-term priority, but the collective management is listed with the medium-term issues, with a two- to four-year timeline. These two issues are inextricably linked, and neither can be dealt with appropriately separately from the other. We think that both should be short-term issues, as educators and collective societies representing rights holders are deadlocked in their views on how to move ahead with educational uses of copyright material on the Internet, although both share the common goal of easy access.

    Collective societies want to license, but educators press for the extension of exceptions in the digital environment, most notably for material that is freely available on the Internet. This includes a lot of copyright material for which rights holders expect to receive remuneration for uses beyond browsing and printing. It is critical for you to look at the potential impact that an exception in any particular media may have on the creator of the copyright material. For example, an exception with respect to an online communication of a copyright work has the potential to do more damage to its author than an exception in the print-on-paper world. We ask, where is the government's research on this?

    It is argued that where collective licensing is available there is no need for exceptions. Collective administration is efficient, where individual licensing is impracticable. For it to work well, especially in the digital environment, there must be mechanisms that will reduce the liability of participants, both the collective societies and their licensed users.

    Our preferred model, already studied by the government, is a version of the extended collective statutory licence in use in the Nordic countries. An alternative would be a limited damage provision, which is in use in the United Kingdom and it is already in place for educational and certain other non-profit institutions under our own Copyright Act.

    Without such mechanisms in the Copyright Act to reduce liability, digital licensing will grow slowly and there will be less access to copyright works. In our view, this is the collective management issue that requires most urgent attention. It should be moved up into the list of short-term priorities, along with access in education issues.

    Access Copyright, the copyright collective society of which we as organizations are members, represents the work of approximately 5,000 Canadian writers. It is poised to grant comprehensive Internet licences to educational institutions and others if amendments to the Copyright Act limit the liability of both the collective society and its licensed users.

Á  (1145)  

    Clarification and simplification of the Copyright Act is in the list of long-term issues. We submit that these principles should be a factor with each and every further amendment. This should not be postponed as a housekeeping item and not addressed for the next four years. It is important to have similar and consistent language to describe similar rights. For example, a “making available” right for authors should be expressed in similar language, so far as possible, to a “making available” right for performers.

    Ms. Penney Kome: To conclude, our society and ways of carrying out certain activities have changed dramatically since 1997, when the last amendments were made to the Copyright Act. We can see a little more clearly the impact of digitization, but no one has a crystal ball. Digitization is having a profound effect on the use of the material we as writers produce, particularly in the spheres of education, government, and business.

    In 1997 the government promised to carry out a review of the act in three years' time, although section 92 itself provided for five years. The document Supporting Culture and Innovation was filed, but without the recommendations that section 92 called for.

    Where is the research on the operation of the act that your committee needs in order to make decisions? Supporting culture and innovation highlights the various conflicting desires of stakeholders, but it gives you little information on the impact of the existing provisions of the Copyright Act.

    In 1997 the government also signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty. We are now in 2003; implementation is long overdue. The wheels of copyright reform grind too slowly, and Canada is being left behind, causing disadvantage for both creators and those who wish to use our works.

    Thank you for inviting us to address you today.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hebb and Ms. Kome. We appreciate your participaton.

    Monsieur Légaré and Madame Messier.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Messier (Executive Director, Quebec Reproduction Rights Collective Administration Society, Droit d'auteur, Multimédia, Internet, Copyright (DAMIC)):

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to appear.

    DAMI© is an organization which represents 12 different collective societies with some 40,000 members. They include the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques; the Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec; the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels; the Société des auteurs de radio, de télévision et de cinéma; the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec; the Union des artistes; the Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois; the Société de droits d'auteur en arts visuels; the Société du droit de reproduction des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs du Canada; the Société de gestion collective de l'Union des artistes; the Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction; and the Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques.

    Because we have been invited to discuss the process, we would really like to focus on that. We have entitled our short presentation: “A Poorly Engaged Process”. I would just like to remind you of what sub-section 92(1) of the Copyright Act says, and I quote:

92. (1) Within five years after the coming into force of this section, the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any recommendations for amendments to this Act.

    DAMI©'s first comment is that the process for reviewing the Copyright Act is not off on the right foot. First of all, the report produced by the government does not meet the objectives set out in section 92. Furthermore, the report fosters a fragmented approach which can only compromise the overall consistency of the legislation. Finally, the priorities that it sets out have more to do with meeting the needs of certain industry players than with enhancing the protection of intellectual works.

    Section 92 of the Act talks about a report on the legislation and the impact of its implementation. It is important to remember that when previous amendments were made to the Act in 1996, a number of new provisions were introduced, including quite a few exceptions. However, the report does not even deal with the impact of these exceptions or the introduction of new rights, such as the right to exhibit or rights for performing artists.

    In fact, the report is silent both on the impact of the legislation and on required changes. Of course, a fairly comprehensive list of the issues associated with review of the Copyright Act is included, but no indication is given as to the direction the government intends to take with respect to these issues.

    That was to be expected. The fact is that most of these issues have not been the subject of any consultation whatsoever, the only consultations having been limited to discussion of rebroadcast over the Internet of free direct broadcast signals, or digital transmission issues related to the two WIPO treaties, as well as the responsibility of Internet service providers. No official opinion has been sought on the other issues.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Hélène Messier: In fact, the review process flows from the premise that when it comes to copyright, large-scale legislative changes are not effective, and that it is preferable to rely on a process involving more frequent, spaced interventions, so that the Copyright Act continues to be a modern, progressive instrument.

    So, there is nothing much new in all of this, since legislative review has, to the great displeasure of creator and copyright owner associations, become the Department's leitmotiv. After an initial review in 1988, and a second one in 1996, departments have now decided to set short-, mid- and long-term priorities, thereby multiplying the number of steps involved in the consultation and review process, not to mention the fact that the various provisions that are adopted are generally subject to additional delays before they are actually implemented.

    Thus issues that were clearly identified years ago have been left in limbo, and the creators or artists that are paying the price for this slow process continue to wonder, with each new phase, when their turn will come. This ongoing review is proving to be increasingly demanding for most artist and creator organizations, which have only limited resources. It should also be noted that although many associations openly criticized the review process being put forward, the report made no mention whatsoever of such criticisms.

    Mr. Yves Légaré (Director General, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Droit d'auteur, Multimédia, Internet, Copyright (DAMIC)): In fact, the process itself reveals more about the government's intentions and the amendments departments are hoping to make than anything else. By setting certain priorities, the government is also demonstrating its desire to resolve certain issues more quickly than others.

    We obviously realize that some issues, such as the ratification of WIPO treaties or the transition period for unpublished works, require immediate action and that the newness of certain concepts, such as traditional knowledge, call for more in-depth consultation. But what possible explanation can there be for the decision to dissociate issues related to access to works from those relating to collective management? Does that mean the government is automatically ruling out copyright collectives as a means of resolving access problems and that it prefers to rely on new exceptions?

    In our view, this kind of compartmentalized, piecemeal approach is incompatible with the government's stated desire to simplify the legislation, while retaining its internal consistency and balance, and gives rise to concerns that the passing needs of some users will take precedence over those with established rights. According to the rules of interpretation, legislation is to be examined in a comprehensive fashion--something that a piecemeal approach does not allow for.

    Fostering the knowledge-based economy means not only making knowledge accessible, but also promoting the development of new knowledge, the production of new works, and, of course, creating an environment conducive to their dissemination. Such an environment can only exist where there is respect for the rights of creators and they continue to be actively associated with the economic life of those works.

    Of course, with the development of new technologies, artistic works are now the very focus of some significant economic activity, and their circulation is a crucial issue. However, in order to ensure content renewal, the Act must provide adequate protection for artistic works: the creation, funding, production and dissemination of such works. It is essential that creators and artists be able to reap the benefit of their work. The Copyright Act provides the legal basis for a creator to control the use of his work.

    Ms. Hélène Messier: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Messier and Mr. Légaré. As an opening panel, I have to say that all of your comments have been extremely enlightening. If I can try to convey some of the sentiments expressed today, I would say that some people are not very happy; in fact, that is somewhat of an understatement. So, that will certainly give rise to some interesting questions.

    We have some time for that now, and our first questioner will be Mr. Jim Abbott.

Á  (1155)  

[English]

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you to all of the witnesses. Your testimony has been exceptionally helpful and has brought into focus, in a very cogent way, the concerns both the creators and the users have, and I guess I might say the level of frustration there is, particularly about the length of time this process is taking.

    I wonder if any of you might be able to give us very briefly an idea, in your judgment, recognizing that each of you has a specific interest—I understand that—but in your judgment.... I take the comment made, I believe, by Ms. Hebb that you can't separate this into the medium-term, that into the long-term, and so on, as well as the other comments that were made.

    In your judgment, what is the most effective way—that's really what this panel is about—to get at this as quickly as possible and expedite the process as much as possible? What can you suggest to us to recommend to the government?

    That's open to everyone.

    Ms. Marian Hebb: I'll risk answering it.

    I think that if the government were to do some more research and if the minister were to make some specific recommendations, as section 92 mandates the minister to do, then there would be something specific to talk about. Then maybe, at the same time, they could get on with simultaneously drafting and we'd have something to look at.

    We're having all of these submissions on this document, then you're going to have a bill and we're going to be back again saying the same things. I think the thing needs to move faster. Maybe more resources and more money have to be put into it. It has to go along more swiftly.

    Mr. Don Butcher: If I may, I'm not actually sure that I agree with the last point about more resources.

    I think that one approach the committee might take—and I think you've even started this process—is to step back a little bit to think through and define fairly tightly the purpose of this legislation. As you heard in my presentation, we believe that it's not only the protection of creators' rights and the rights of the rights holders, there's also a role for the broader public interest through social justice.

    Once it's clear that we know that we want to accomplish the advancement of the Canadian economy and culture—and it wouldn't take too long to actually define that, I think—it would then lead to the purpose of the legislation and the objects of the legislation.

    In fact, we found that in Bill C-36, which this committee dealt with earlier this year, those sections actually worked quite well. It was very clear what the purpose of the legislation was and what the objects of the legislation were, and then it went into powers.

    Similarly, you could follow that same model of defining purpose and objects. Once those are clear, it's almost like strategic planning. Once you have the vision and you know what you want to accomplish, sometimes it's very easy at that point to say what fits and what doesn't.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Messier, would you like to comment?

    Ms. Hélène Messier: One of the problems with this legislation is precisely the fact that responsibility for it is shared by two departments and that each has its own vision of how things should work. I wouldn't want to have the job of drafting amendments or having to deal with that problem of divergent goals and mandates.

    As far as we are concerned, if the Copyright Act were within the sole purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage, it would be possible to take a much more direct and consistent approach to issues. If that were the case, all the players could then also take a position.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Yves Légaré: For once I would actually agree with the person representing the Canadian Library Association. There needs to be a vision underlying the legislation. The problem is that we don't share the same vision and that we probably will not agree with the vision that has been put forward. The Copyright Act is intended to protect intellectual works. There is no contradiction between that and the idea of wanting to ensure that knowledge can be broadly disseminated, including across educational institutions as a whole.

    In order to protect intellectual works and ensure that they can be circulated, there is a need to provide for them to be reproduced. The only way of ensuring that they can be reproduced is to guarantee creators adequate compensation. The problem with the Copyright Act is that for 20 years now, we have been holding consultations. In 1989, I attended the first consultations held by an exceptions committee where there was lengthy debate of issues relating to access. Since 1989, schools have continued to access works and creators have been seeking appropriate compensation for that access.

    Since then, it's almost as though legislators were reluctant to determine what exactly the purpose of the Act is. Is the whole point to do justice to educational institutions and libraries, or should we instead be ensuring that creators, producers and other artists receive compensation? And yet they are not mutually exclusive. A Copyright Act is intended to ensure that works are protected and that they can exist. If there are mechanisms in place that allow for free negotiations between those who create such works and those who use them, the result will be fair compensation. If the government--and this is sort of what has been happening in recent years--tries to micromanage and says that educational institutions are concerned that copyright owners will demand compensation when a poem is written on the blackboard and that they are asking for there to be exceptions for that very purpose, when in fact no copyright collective has ever even thought of making such claim, we will end up with legislation where the guidelines are not clear, where people will wonder what the exceptions are and to what extent they fully or partially apply to a specific use that is made of a copyright holder's work. On the other hand, if we allow collective societies to operate as they're intended, I am sure that educational institutions will be powerful enough and have the collective force necessary to engage in balanced negotiations with copyright owners. There is no doubt that when we have exclusivity, we cannot abuse that right by demanding compensation. So, there has to be some balancing here; that is the very reason why we have a Copyright Board. Resolving the issue of a proper balance does not mean determining whether there is an imbalance between the bargaining power of educational institutions, as opposed to copyright owners.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Mr. Boyle.

    Mr. Brian Boyle: I would have to say that we agree with the process and the selection of priorities. One of our concerns is that as the process drags on it's costing photographers $5,000 a month to stock photography.

    The Chair: I realize that the groups within copyright find it hard to agree totally one way or the other. It's always evident. At the same time, if I detect a consensus here, it's that speed is of the essence.

    Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you.

    I believe it was important to meet with you this morning and hear what you had to say about how you think the Copyright Act needs to be amended.

    I am one of those who believe that artists should receive fair compensation in order to be able to create. It must be quite frustrating to see that one's work can be changed, and as we all know, with the advent of digital technologies and the Internet, access is unlimited. As for new exceptions such as the ones you have referred to, I think it would be useful for you to give us additional examples--examples that would bring home to us in a more concrete fashion just why you feel such frustration about this.

    We have met with a number of educational institutions through an English-language association, and we know that although these institutions want more extensive access, they say they are prepared to defray the costs of that access. Perhaps you could elaborate more on how you see this demand on the part of educational institutions. Is it the same thing in English Canada as in Quebec, for example?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Hélène Messier: The Quebec Ministry of Education has not endorsed the demands of its counterparts on the Council of Minister of Education, although it is participating as an observer. At the same time, I still believe it has no definitive position on this issue.

    We have met a number of times with representatives of the education sector with respect to this request for exemptions. The problem is that the schools would like for everything that is accessible to the public to be considered copyright free. By that they mean what is accessible and not subject to technological protection. We, however, are of the view that this definition is too restrictive and does not reflect reality. André Cornellier could give you specific examples in this regard, including the fact that the schools do not recognize a number of Internet sites which clearly state that they are copyrighted and that reproduction is prohibited. They believe that these kinds of instructions are just too difficult for children to understand.

    They would like these sites, given that they aren't protected with specific technology such as encryption or passwords, to be considered copyright free, so that people could use them free of charge. However, most sites are designed for users to see the content, which does not necessarily imply that this content will be used, modified or reproduced on a large scale.

    Visual artists are quite sensitive about the use of their work. They want to be sure that a photograph or image that they have created will not be associated with a product or service that could conflict with their principles, or with a political or military cause that they don't support. An author may want to have exclusive rights over one of his works, and thus be in a position to accept or refuse its use. Also, we shouldn't forget about the right to receive compensation.

    In cases where the author has specified that he doesn't want his work reproduced, we want users to respect that wish, without it being necessary to erect walls around the creative works of authors that are found on the Internet. Authors are willing to accept the idea that people will have access to their work, but not uncontrolled, free access.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

    Do I have permission to ask another question?

    The Chair: If it only requires a brief reply.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Cornellier, you're asking that the photographer, rather than the owner of the negative, be the one considered to be the author of a photograph. If that were to occur, what impact would it have on the rights of the owner of the negative?

    Mr. André Cornellier: The legislation will have no impact on what was done prior to its implementation, but once it's changed, it will apply to new commissions. People who owned copyright before it came into effect will continue to own that copyright. The problem now is that the owner of the negative is recognized as being the author of the photograph. In actual fact, the author is the person who created the image.

    Some people are wondering what will happen to the person who appears in the photograph--the person's face, for example. We agree that with respect to the photograph itself--unlike a painting or music, for example--a number of rights apply. As the creator of the work, the photographer is entitled to his own style. Everything in the photograph does not belong to the photographer; that is protected by other laws. For example, if I photograph someone drinking a can of Coke next to a car, the car is protected under the Patent Act, the can of Coke, through its trademark, and the individual, through the Privacy Act.

    So, if the photographer wants to use that photograph, he has to ask permission to do so from three separate entities; conversely, the latter should have to ask the photographer for permission to use his work. In photography, that process should work in both directions. At the present time, however, everyone has the right to use our photographs without our permission, even though we do not have the right to use what appears in the photograph without receiving authorization from the affected parties. We believe that to redress that unfairness, the latter should have to obtain our permission to use our work.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Good morning to all our witnesses and thank you for being here.

    Mr. Cornellier, I would like to talk to you about your issue, especially since you are appealing to us for assistance with this. You're asking us to consider implementing the amendments proposed in a bill tabled by Senator Joseph Day, which is currently at second reading in the Senate of Canada. I agree that this would be an excellent opportunity for the House of Commons to follow suit and give you what you photographers are asking for. You are asking for an amendment to section 10 to bring the wording up to date by including digital photography. That is what I understood you to say.

    Mr. André Cornellier: Actually, we would like to see sub-section 10(2) deleted.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: You want it deleted?

    Mr. André Cornellier: Yes, the one where it says that the person who owns the negative or plate…

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I believe that is section 13, Mr. Cornellier.

    Mr. André Cornellier: No. The section that discusses ownership of the negative is sub-section 10(2). Section 13 is about the person who commissions the photograph.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I see. It's rather technical, but because I have the legislation and--especially when we're talking about copyright--since I'm a lawyer, I like to refer back to the Act. So the legislation reads:

10. (1) Where the owner referred to in sub-section (2) is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making […] of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years.

    This is rather technical, but if I understand you correctly, what you are seeking is to have the bill include digital photography, and you especially want to ensure that the third party who commissioned the photograph is not longer deemed to be the owner, and that the photographer is indeed considered to be the copyright owner. You also want the term of copyright to be fifty years following the death of the photographer, as is the case throughout the rest of Act. Did I get that right?

    Mr. André Cornellier: Yes. I would just like to clarify two points. We do indeed want to be recognized as the creators of the work, and thus own the copyright in order to be able to sell our work, which cannot be done at the present time and which causes a major problem. In the United States, France--indeed, everywhere, photographers, because they are the first owners of the copyright, can resell their photographs several times, whereas we can only sell them once and are not able to participate in the image bank system, which brings in revenues of about $50,000 a year. So, we are the only country that does not participate in such a system, that currently has sales of about $3.7 billion per year. Thus we are at a considerable disadvantage. That's why we are asking for this change.

    As regards the term of copyright in photographic works, it's mainly the WIPO that is saying there cannot be two different interpretations. At the present time, however, there are two interpretations: if it's an individual, it's fifty years after death, but if it's a corporation, it's fifty years after the photograph was originally taken; in order for there to be ratification of the WIPO Treaty, there has to be single term--and that's the WIPO itself saying that.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: You were explaining that privacy will be respected by photographers. Are you able to tell us whether all these amendments are in Bill S-20? If we were to decide to pass it in the House of Commons, would you photographers be satisfied?

  (1215)  

    Mr. André Cornellier: As far as we are concerned, if Bill S-20 were to pass, we would be completely satisfied. Our needs would be met. The only issue that wouldn't have been addressed would be the term of copyright, but that is really more of an issue for the WIPO. It wouldn't change anything for us because the Act states that for copyright owners, the term of copyright is automatically fifty years following the life of the author.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So, I understand what your basic demands are now, and that meeting them would put us on an equal footing, in terms of keeping pace with the times, with the WIPO and international treaties. Thank you.

    Ms. Messier, Mr. Légaré…

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Allard. I'll come back to you later. We're going to give Ms. Bulte a chance.

    Ms. Bulte.

[English]

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for coming and for your presentations.

    I would start by saying I agree with Madam Gagnon that the artist must be properly compensated, and that's where we come from.

    Mr. Butcher, my questions are going to be directed at you, because I thought it quite interesting that everything you quoted from came from Industry Canada. One of the things you did miss was that part of our innovation strategy is also to ensure we have the most talented people in the world by 2010. I would submit we're not going to be able to do that if our copyright law with respect to our artists lags behind that of the United States.

    I also found it quite interesting that you said we are much more restrictive than the United States is. I'd like you to elaborate on that, because my understanding is that we lag behind the U.S. I mean, they have passed their Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is more far-reaching than what we have.

    I guess, Mr. Butcher, you also talked to the fact that for this innovation age, we will need all this research. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Butcher, we're not going to have any research from Canadian artists unless we allow those artists to create and prosper. And I don't agree with your stewardship strategy, I will tell you up front for the record.

    I would like you to please tell me what it is your association actually proposes. What is it you want us to do? And don't talk about adopting the U.K. model, which is not relevant. Tell us what it is your library association wants this legislation to do, exactly.

    Mr. Don Butcher: Okay, I heard three separate questions there. I'll try to deal with all of them.

    The specific reference to the U.S., the U.K., and other trading partners was around the technical issue in terms of the dissemination of electronic journals, mostly in academic institutions, academic libraries, although it extends into the public library sector. It's in that specific area that Canada falls behind the U.S. and the U.K.

    The concrete example, very quickly, is that in the U.S., a library can deliver an electronic version of a document to a professor's desktop. That's actually prevented in Canada, which we would argue is unduly restrictive for the users.

    Dealing with your other issues, I want to perhaps elaborate on what seems to be a misunderstanding. The Canadian Library Association doesn't represent just users; we also represent creators. As recently as June, in a meeting I had with other colleagues from the Writers' Union we discussed copyright extensively, and they pointed out that their members go to public libraries to access information. So we're supporters of the creator sector. In a sense, that's an aspect of stewardship, in that we provide some creators with access to the information they need to do the creation. So this isn't an “us and them”. There are the creators, the rights holders, and the users. And on the creators' side, the public library is actually very well positioned.

    Now, your third point was against--and please correct me if I'm wrong--this idea of looking at copyright as a stewardship issue. Clearly, it's a matter of opinion. But we don't see the government just brokering a deal here--the creators are here, the rights holders are there, and the users are on the other end. We think there's a broader social justice issue of ensuring an environment.

    The environment for growth of knowledge and innovation isn't just to give creators more money. That seems to be the message you're hearing from our colleagues. It's the issue of dissemination so they can access the works of others. You can't just say creators should get more money. That's fine, but the other people who are going to use their knowledge or their creations are going to be penalized. So it's not as simple as saying license everything.

  (1220)  

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Butcher.

    Actually, that's not what I'm hearing from you. I see it being much broader. I see it as fostering an environment where artists are able to create. It's not just about money. It's about having the same kinds of rights and opportunities as artists have in the United States, for example. And again, with all due respect, I don't think we can look at one piece of legislation with the Americans and say that's why it's different. There's a whole big package there. It's one thing to take one little piece out of it and say okay, we should do the same thing. I think we have to look at it in the context of the broader legislation.

    I'll move very quickly to Ms. Kome. I was quite interested when you said there's an imbalance between the writers and publishers. I'd like you to expand on that, because I'm quite interested in that area.

    Ms. Marian Hebb: I guess the most obvious example of that is the ongoing disputes between the periodical writers and the large newspapers and databases. That is one instance of it.

    It really comes out of the perception that writers don't have much bargaining power when they're dealing with producers or publishers. This is true throughout the whole art sector, too. Why are artists' and writers' incomes in this country so low? We're trying to look at the structures in the various industries to try to figure out why writers have so little bargaining power, when in fact they are the raw material.

    This doesn't translate very eloquently; Ms. Kome could probably say this much more eloquently.

    At the bottom, it all comes down to the writers and other artists. Why are these people having to struggle so much for a living?

    I guess the most dramatic thing in 1997 was the single copy from periodicals, which relates to what Mr. Butcher was saying in part. In 1997 a provision came in that public libraries could copy for patrons single copies of periodical articles that haven't been published within the last year. This happened just at the time when Access Copyright, and I believe Copibec as well, were starting to license public libraries. The stream of revenue that has come from libraries is very small in comparison with all the work it took to license libraries, and the writers really expected that they would be getting a reasonable stream of revenue from this. Most of them earn under $12,000 a year.

    The Chair: Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming.

    I hear a lot of disappointment from all sides about how long this process has dragged on. I've also heard the question, where is the research on the operation of this act that would allow this committee to make decisions? That's a very good question. Has the appropriate research been done? It doesn't sound like it has.

    It's really discouraging to hear the fact that we are seeing writers and libraries in adversarial positions. It's as if public institutions of knowledge and schools and libraries are working at cross-purposes. I guess it maybe has to do with the fact that we've hollowed out the whole public nature of our learning and cultural institutions, and it's a very disturbing fact that there is not enough of an economic structure to support those institutions the way they should be supported.

    I'm concerned about the fact that the PLR program, the public lending rights program, the one way that writers are now protected and get some kind of compensation through the libraries, is being cut back. It is a cautionary tale that the one program that is in place right now is being cut back, so writers are making less money through the PLR than they used to. We need to look at that as well; it is kind of the canary in the mine.

    Ms. Hebb, I think you mentioned that the clock is ticking on section 7 of the Copyright Act, the unpublished work section, and that Bill C-36 has been working its way through the committee. There is a bit of a compromise position, which I believe is to the effect that because this thing has maybe been handled badly, we are going to give an extension of three more years to this section on unpublished works, so that we can get it right in the course of that three-year period. That is my understanding of what the three-year period is; it certainly isn't that after three years, it's just cut off, and that was our compromise. I believe in fact we're saying that we're giving this committee and this government three more years to get it right, and maybe move toward the new international standard of copyright, from 50 years to 70 years. So that's my understanding.

    I'd like your comments on that possible compromise wording, now that we're quite possibly putting it into this legislation.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Marian Hebb: My comments? I'm relieved to hear that there is some sort of a temporary solution, but I would be very reluctant if this were to turn out to be the final solution, because in fact giving another couple of years leaves the people who are affected in limbo. They're still in a situation where if they wanted to publish something tomorrow they wouldn't be able to find a publisher, because no one is going to publish something where the copyright expires in 2006, or whatever the period of time is. I guess that's all I can really say.

    Mr. Don Butcher: Mr. Chairman, as you probably know, the library community has been watching Bill C-36 very closely because of the main purpose of the legislation, which was the creation of the Library and Archives of Canada. So this compromise, as I understand it, would, I assume, move forward that aspect of that legislation or allow what we see as the main purpose of Bill C-36 to move forward.

    As for the specific provisions, we're aware of all the work that has gone on between Canadian Heritage and mostly the archives community, which created the compromise that's captured in Bill C-36. Although we're not particularly pleased with it, it's an issue where you can't win them all. We're not opposing an extension for three more years to get it right and not opposing the extension of copyright from published works.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Just to finish on this thinking, I guess we've heard that such extensive consultation has gone into this particular bill, Bill C-36, and all the artists' organizations have been involved in it. We have to be clear that we are listening, and the collective wisdom that they bring to these issues and that we boil down as we come up with legislation isn't going to be swept away at the last minute, that in fact they have validity. Otherwise, why have you waste your time to come to this committee if you're not getting heard and your concerns aren't being heard?

    So I just have to say that I believe we in this committee are committed to making sure that this is a bit of a breathing place so that we can get it right, so that we in fact can get it to that international standard that we believe will protect our writers.

    The Chair: Ms. Kome.

    Ms. Penney Kome: I want to thank Ms. Lill for her questions and for raising the question of public lending right.

    We believe public lending right is threatened, but we're not persuaded yet that we will lose our full payments. This is a matter that we will continue to address, as the Writers' Union of Canada, in the months ahead.

    The Chair: Great. I think we should move on to other questioners.

    Madame Frulla.

[Translation]

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think we all agree here that there is an urgent need for legislation which, first of all, allows us to ratify and enforce the WIPO Treaty and, secondly, is modern--meaning that it reflects the most recent technological developments while at the same time protecting our creative sources--in other words, authors.

    I have listened to all of your comments and I realize that there are different visions out there. This is not simple legislation. The Department has presented us with its vision of things, saying that there is a need for compartmentalization because otherwise, we will never achieve our vision. Ms. Messier and Mr. Légaré, you were saying that that makes no sense whatsoever. You have given us examples, asking how we can make distinctions between access to works administered by copyright collectives and access gained through new technology. You don't seem to be at all satisfied with the current system.

    We have also wondered about this, but at the same time, we realize that the process has dragged on for some time and that nothing has yet been accomplished. If we continue to aim for perfect legislation, we will never achieve that. Can you suggest any potential solutions to point us in the right direction?

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Mr. Légaré, would you like to start?

    Mr. Yves Légaré: In a way, what we have been saying is that not only is it compartmentalized, but it may be moving us in a certain direction.

    Let's take the example of access to education, copyright collectives and both clarification and simplification of the Act. One of the most difficult things to negotiate with teaching institutions in the 1980s was compensation for use. They simply did not understand the legislation, found it too complicated and had the feeling that the exceptions applied to them generally, because they felt they were using the works in a fair way and that, in any case, it wasn't always all works. So, in a sense, we had to demonstrate that the Act did in fact apply to them.

    When the schools asked to be subject to certain exemptions, over the years, they laid out the kind of problems they had been encountering, asking what potential solutions could be levered. For example, if I write a poem on the blackboard, do I have to pay for that use? According to the Act, the answer was yes. If I simply want to view a copyrighted work that presents information, do I have to pay? The Act said that I do. However, instead of turning to users to talk about how to resolve this problem, they turned to legislators, who decided that there would be an exception for things written on blackboards, as well as an exception for works that were viewed, but that the schools would keep a log book setting out this information and keep it for a certain amount of time, and then get rid of it.

    In our opinion, with the decision to compartmentalize come solutions that don't really apply to the legislation as a whole and certainly don't demonstrate an understanding of the general structure of copyright legislation. If you want to meet the needs of teaching institutions, which are very real in the current environment, given the expansion of the Internet, then maybe we should be thinking about what economic model we could propose to charge fees for the dissemination of such works over the Internet. However, we cannot arrive at such an economic model without a thorough understanding of the system behind collectives and without knowing how we will actually collect fees.

    The danger is that you will end up creating a very cumbersome bureaucratic system--because let's not forget that we are talking about exceptions to the Act--that will not meet the needs of educational institutions and will possibly deprive copyright collectives of their ability to collect fees. In a way, that would totally paralyze the industry. On the other hand, if you simply introduce general parameters, we will be in a position to make adjustments based on negotiations with educational institutions or other users, according to need and to changes that occur in the industry.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: There you have given us an example, and it is really an example of an exception. Having said that, in terms of the legislation as a whole, we are talking about short-, medium- and long-term changes. Our reaction was to say that in the mid-term, we could really tackle the meat and potatoes--without neglecting the other issues, because in the short term, we could look at enforcing the Treaty and dealing with the issues related to photography. As for the long term, it really had much more to do with the international aspect of the legislation.

    So, there are several facets to this. The departments are saying that this kind of process takes time, that there is a need for a lot of research and compensation, and that we are not there yet. Now you have been repeatedly consulted

  (1235)  

[English]

every one of you, twice, more than once.

[Translation]

    Do you still think that in order to have modern, enforceable legislation that is comparable to that of other industrialized countries, we need to hold further consultations, or do you think it would be possible to carry out this kind of consultation in a somewhat shorter timeframe?

    Ms. Hélène Messier: This bill reflects a number of the priorities that were already laid out in a document published by the government back in 1985 which, if I'm not mistaken, was entitled A Charter of Rights for Creators. The government took a clear position in that document and made a number of well structured proposals. The problem is that we have the feeling we are saying exactly the same things all over again, and that if we extend the consultation process, we will essentially be given exactly the same answers again.

    We want the government to make up its mind so that we have an opportunity to take a clear position on draft legislation, a White Paper or some sort of legislative proposal. My sense is that there may be a lack of political will. There are models in place all across the globe. We are in the process of implementing European directives, we are familiar with Scandinavian models, and we are aware of what is going on in the United States, Australia and England. A number of countries have already passed legislation in this area. The departments are well aware of the positions that have been taken by the various associations, those representing both artists and users, and we would like to see something concrete come out of all of this.

    Mr. Yves Légaré: In terms of the priorities, the only one about which there is any consensus is the WIPO Treaty. That is urgent. Action is needed in the very short term. The other issues can be part of a comprehensive analysis, and that is the message we are trying to convey. There's also the question of traditional knowledge, something we address in our brief. There have been no consultations in that area. As for the other issues, my view is that the exceptions have been studied over and over and over again in the last twenty years. Issues related to limited damages, extended licences, and mandatory licences have all been studied over and over again in the context of copyright collectives.

    Recently I re-read a document published in 1991 by the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners. Most of these problems were already on the table then. Since then, creators have expressed a unanimous view in this regard. They wonder why photographers don't have the same status as all other creators. That is an exception that simply makes no sense whatsoever. All of these issues have been reviewed, and yet once again, we have been given another document to examine. Yes, all the issues are there, but what position is actually being put forward? In terms of access and education, for example, does the government intend to relax the rules with respect to collective societies, so that everything the schools are seeking can be negotiated, or does it intend to simply introduce exceptions? That really isn't clear, and it's pretty much the same for all the other items. The issues are there; in the sense that they're all very well defined, this is a useful document. However, we would have liked to see this kind of document ten years ago and now have an opportunity to review actual legislation that we could critique, saying that such and such a section doesn't suit us. I think that in that case we could have agreed on certain trade-offs, particularly since the government is quite aware of the positions of the various stakeholders and is perfectly able to set a direction.

    The Chair: Mr. Cornellier, did you want to add something?

    Mr. André Cornellier: Yes. To answer your question, I believe a new concept has become increasingly prominent in recent years, and that is the concept of user rights. One may consider this not to be a true concept, if it's looked at in a different light. In the case of a normal company that, say, manufactures screws or tires, say that company carries out its work as it sees fit and the government doesn't pass legislation about rights relating to tires or screws, nor about what one is supposed to do with a tire and a screw.

    Let's look at the Copyright Act. If a creator holds a copyright, all he really wants to do is make his work accessible, and sell as much as possible; he will not cut back dissemination of his work. The more he is able to sell, the lower the selling price. If he makes a thousand sales, the unit price will be less than if he only makes one sale. Every time there is an exception, I am prevented from making a sale to a specific client. I am told that I cannot sell my work to that client. If there are only three clients that I can sell my work to, I will have to raise my prices. If that happens, people will say that users are mistreated, because they will have to pay more. And that will happen because there are too many exceptions and I have to fall back on a limited number of clients in order to make some money. I believe that the more exceptions there are, the more complex the system becomes and the less benefit there is to the creator.

    And there is another important point here. People complain about the fact that users don't have access to material, but let's take a closer look: creators are never the people preventing that access; intermediaries and publishers are the culprits. They have acquired a great many rights over the years. Even though they are not creators, they have taken ownership of certain rights by having creators sign contracts, so, they have acquired a lot of rights. They are the people preventing the public from accessing the work of creators; not the creators themselves. I believe that were the legislation to again give priority to creators, that would mean that their work would be more readily accessible. If we got rid of the exceptions, the process would be different.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Légaré, Ms. Messier, it's true that when you get into politics, there are adjustments to be made, so I really understand where you're coming from. I know that you have been consulted about this on a number of occasions, and I understand the frustration you and others are feeling.

    I see in your brief that you represent about one third of the associations; you represent some twelve copyright collectives, and we are told there are 36. So, you are a big player in this area in Canada.

    Would you say that is an accurate assessment?

    Ms. Hélène Messier: There 36 collective societies. We represent artists associations and copyright collectives. So, I would say that we are a big player, probably the biggest player in Quebec, but we certainly cannot claim to represent one third of all copyright collective societies.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I understand. So, I can assume that you are a big player. I was really interested in your comments. Looking at your brief, you obviously referred to sections 14.1, 28.1 and 28.2. I believe you also take a clear position on the treatment of photographers. We agree, and we accept Mr. Cornellier's argument: it is high time a change was made.

    You also referred to sub-section 13(3), but what I wanted to discuss with you is your own mission, which is set out in several different sections of the legislation: 3, 15, 18, 21, 70, and 70.6. You are not questioning what you have been granted. You feel that the way collective societies operate is appropriate, but based on what you seem to be saying, Mr. Légaré, the problem, which is now identified as a short-term issue, revolves around access and education. So, what exactly will collective societies do to deal with this issue of “access and education”? You don't want the government to be too interventionist, but you do want it to set parameters.

    Have you thought about the kind of parameters you would like to see us adopt, that would allow you some flexibility, and at the same time give some satisfaction to the educational sector?

    Mr. Yves Légaré: Those parameters were referred to earlier, but one of the problems that sometimes arises is that copyright collectives are not in a position to set aside all rights. They may have more limited inventories than what users needs require and cannot necessarily take ownership of those rights and authorize use of the works. So, there are mechanisms such as limited damages or extended licences whereby it is possible under the legislation, when a society has broad representation, for it to represent more copyright holders.

    Otherwise, there is also the possibility of mandatory licensing, an approach that has less appeal to copyright collectives. With a more extensive inventory, they are in fact in a position to satisfy users' needs to a much greater extent.

  (1245)  

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: My question is quite specific. I'm looking at a piece of legislation here that contains a lot of different sections. Earlier, Ms. Messier referred to section 30.1. In terms of access and education, what section of the Act should we be referring to. Is there a legal framework in place?

    Mr. Yves Légaré: Since I'm not a lawyer, I rarely refer to actual sections of the Act.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I see that Ms. Messier is also getting out her copy of the Act. If we want to be really practical about this… This is sort of what we are asking the Department to do. We're asking it to come forward with completely new sections in some cases. Since you are from the industry and you have ideas about what should be done--you mentioned earlier that you had been talking about this since 1985--if we asked you today to submit a legal framework to us that would reflect what you are asking for, what would that legal framework look like?

    Ms. Hélène Messier: Well, I guess the legal framework would be fairly simple, because basically starting with section 70.1 of the Act, if I'm not mistaken--these are the sections that establish the parameters for collective societies--we really already have the legal framework we need.

    So, I'd say that the legal framework is already in place. If collective societies were given the authority to exercise their responsibility in a new area such as the digital world, not with impunity--certainly not, but… Our problem as a collective society, is that we want to satisfy users, but taking the example of COPIBEC or Access Copyright, we have been given mandates for electronic reproduction by our constituents, the authors and publishers we represent. Tomorrow morning, I could sign a licensing agreement with Canadian libraries and universities.

    The problem with Canadian universities, Cegeps and so on is that half of the collection they reproduce is foreign, and for the time being, neither the Americans nor the English are in a position to deliver their collection to me, as we now do with hard copy documents. And they may not be able to do so for several years yet, whereas in some countries, such as Norway or Finland where they have extended licensing systems in place, the Fins and Scandinavians are able to provide their entire collection to the universities, because their legislation makes provision for that.

    A number of European countries, by introducing the new European directive and amending their own laws, have developed licensing systems that allow them--as has also been done in Australia--to transfer certain rights to educational institutions with respect to electronic uses of material. So, the problem is not a lack of goodwill. My view is that the legal framework is in place and that there is currently an international environment where, based on voluntary mandates such as the ones collective societies have always exercised or inventory exchanges between copyright collectives, it's becoming difficult to satisfy the schools. However, we are prepared--and here I am speaking on behalf of all collective societies--to sit down with the schools and libraries tomorrow, because the legal framework we require is already there. Our problem is how to acquire all the rights and access the entire collection so as to satisfy them. That is really all we're talking about.

    What we are suggesting is that rather than making the legislation more complex, we should simplify it by deleting a lot of sections in order to focus on some very, very simple, fundamental principles which place creators at the very centre of the Copyright Act, ensure that they will have a say as to how their work is to be used, and that also guarantee protection of their moral rights, so that they know their works cannot be used in a way that would harm their reputation. We want to once again place the emphasis on mechanisms…

    When support was expressed for the creation of collective societies in 1997, the government had already made its political bed. Well, in that case, it should support that principle and continue to defend it, and allow for interaction and free negotiation between users since, particularly when we're negotiating with such organizations as CREPUQ or the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, these users are important stakeholders. So, we should ultimately be allowing these people to agree among themselves, especially since the Copyright Commission can always act as mediator or adjudicator in such situations.

    Mr. Yves Légaré: As a general rule, the overall framework…

    The Chair: Mr. Légaré, since we only have five minutes left, I would like to give Ms. Hebb a chance to comment. I believe Ms. Frulla also has a question.

    Ms. Hebb.

[English]

    Ms. Marian Hebb: I just wanted to give an historical example of what had happened when Access Copyright first started negotiating with educators on photocopying. We asked the users to record and tell us what they were copying and keep records of them. The educators said “No, we don't want to do that. You take responsibility for it.” So Access Copyright said “Okay, we'll take responsibility”. The educators then were able to copy whatever they wanted, and Access Copyright took responsibility if in fact they happened to copy something that wasn't in the repertoire.

    Cancopy had no protection for that, except that it's fairly limited damage that could be caused by somebody making a photocopy. The educators were still worried about it. The government gave them another section in the act that said “Okay, educators, if you're sued the person won't get any more damages than what they would have gotten if they had been covered in the repertoire of the collective society”. The users got that, and the collectives did not get that protection.

    Now we're in the same position again, except we're dealing with a digital world. The damages.... If in fact something were copied digitally and then it spread all over the world through the Internet, the damages would be enormous. The collectives can't say to the educators, okay, we'll take responsibility for that.

    That's why we're asking you now for the sort of mechanism that Yves and Hélène have been talking about, the extended collective licence or a limited damage provision, so we can say to the educators, or to other sectors if they want to participate, we'll take responsibility for this.

    We're not saying we're going to charge you for everything. We're saying we recognize that there are a lot of things on the Internet that no one needs to pay for. But there are some things, there are some copyright owners who do expect to be paid, and through our licensing system and our collectives we will manage to get some compensation to them.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Madame Frulla.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Mr. Butcher, I know that you want to talk, and I'm anxious to hear you. Madame Messier, Monsieur Légaré, and Madame Hebb just told us about the law and putting back the creator as the focal point of the law. Do you agree with that?

    Mr. Don Butcher: Thank you for asking, because that was where I was trying to jump in.

    I believe my colleague used the phrase “putting the creator at the heart of the legislation”. I think the Canadian Library Association thinks the Canadian public and the health of the Canadian cultural community and the Canadian economy should be at the heart of the legislation. It's not just.... We've slipped back into the language of brokering a deal between the creators and the users, and that ignores the benefits to all of us of access to information and the dissemination of photographs.

    I was a creator. I was a photographer and I own copyright to my work, and I am proud of that. But there should also be some mechanism for the Canadian society, the Canadian cultural community, to access my work relatively inexpensively or sample my work in a free way, so that everyone can benefit from my creation.

    I think if we talk with creators they'll say the same thing, that it's not just money, that creators create for the joy of creation. Yes, they need to be compensated; I think we all agree on that. But there's a broader issue here that seems to get missed in this debate between creators, rightholders, and users.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: But there are no users if there are no creators, right?

    Mr. Don Butcher: That's why the Canadian Library Association is so supportive of the creative community. We need the content, quite frankly, to preserve and disseminate.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Right. Thank you.

    The Chair: I would like to thank you very much for appearing today. It's been extremely useful to us. I think a few broad lines have been made quite clear to us, and we really appreciate it.

[Translation]

    I want to thank all of you for appearing today. Your testimony has been particularly enlightening. Thank you very much.

[English]

    The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.